Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Wiser Capital Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1416 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 July 2018 Date of orders: 09 August 2018 Decision date: 09 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wiser Capital Pty Ltd (Applicant)
The Hills Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Dr S Berveling (Applicant)
P Hudson, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
Apex Lawyers Pty Ltd (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2018/32124 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 1951/2017/JP and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents:
DRAWING NO.
DESCRIPTION
ISSUE
DATE
DA02
Location Plan
C
March 2018
DA03
Site Analysis Plan
C
March 2018
DA04
Ground Floor Layout & Site Statistics
D
March 2018
DA05
Roof Plan & Landscape
C
March 2018
DA06
Lower Ground Car Park Plan
G
08/06/2018
DA29
Townhouse Type A9
C
March 2018
DA30
Townhouse Type A10
C
March 2018
DA18
Street Elevation 2
C
March 2018
DA19
Street Elevation 3
C
March 2018
000
Landscape Site Plan
H
04/06/2018
101
Landscape Plan
G
04/06/2018
102
Landscape Plan
G
04/06/2018
103
Landscape Plan
G
04/06/2018
104
Landscape Plan
H
04/06/2018
105
Landscape Plan
G
04/06/2018
106
Landscape Plan
G
04/06/2018
107
Landscape Plan
C
04/06/2018
108
Landscape Plan
B
04/06/2018
109
Landscape Plan
B
04/06/2018
110
Landscape Plan
B
04/06/2018
501
Landscape Details & Plant Schedule
F
28/05/2018
502
Landscape Details
B
29/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 1 of 13
Locality Sketch, General Notes, Index
B
March 2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 2 of 15
Site Plan
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 3 of 13
Cosmos Way – Road No.1 Long. Section, Cross Sections – Ch.15.435 To Ch.60 & Typical
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 4 of 13
Cosmos Way – Road No.1 Cross Sections – Ch.75 To Ch.307.931
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 5 of 13
Mason Road – Road No.2 Long. Sections, Cross Sections – Ch.00 To Ch.60 & Typical
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 6 of 13
Mason Road – Road No.2 Cross Sections – Ch.69.954 To Ch.150
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 7 of 13
Taurus Way – Road No.3 Long. Section, Cross-Sections & Typical
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 8 of 13
Aries Way – Road No.4 Long. Sections, Cross-Sections, & Typical
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 9 of 13
Aurora Street – Road No.5 Long. Sections, Cross-Sections, & Typical
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 10 of 13
Demolition Plan
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 11 of 13
Tree Management Plan
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 12 of 13
Sediment & Erosion Control Plan
B
8/03/2018
1266-DA-B
Sheet 13 of 13
Sediment & Erosion Control Details
B
8/03/2018
1266-OSD
Sheet 1 of 5
Osd Catchment Plan
28/05/2018
1266-OSD
Sheet 2 of 5
Drainage Long. Sections Lines 2, 3 & 5
28/05/2018
1266-OSD
Sheet 3 of 5
Drainage Long. Sections Lines 7, 9 To 17 Inclusive
28/05/2018
1266-OSD
Sheet 4 of 5
Drainage Long. Sections Lines 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 & 26
28/05/2018
1266-OSD
Sheet 5 of 5
Drainage Calculations
28/05/2018
BASIX Certificate No. 823555M_02
JHA Consultant Engineers (NSW) Pty Ltd
3 April 2018
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 1951/2017/JP seeking consent for subdivision to create three residential lots (known as lots 1, 2 and 3) and one residual lot for road widening, the demolition of existing structures, tree removal, earthworks, construction of roads and installation of services, construction of a multi-dwelling housing development comprising 111 townhouses on Lots 1 and 2 over one level of basement car parking accommodating a total of 222 car parking spaces, associated landscaping works and provision of communal areas, strata subdivision of the townhouses and use of unit No. 82 as an exhibition home on the land at 17-21 Mason Road, Box Hill subject to the condition of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.
……………………………
Jenny Smithson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (516 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Wiser Capital Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1416
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1416
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the Council's decision to refuse the rezoning application was unreasonable and whether the Council had adequately considered the relevant planning policies and statutory criteria. The developer contended that the Council's decision was unreasonable because it did not align with the planning policies and statutory criteria for rezoning. The Council, on the other hand, argued that the refusal was justified based on the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding environment and community.
The court found that the Council's decision to refuse the rezoning application was not unreasonable. The court held that the Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and statutory criteria in making its decision. The court found that the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding environment and community were significant and outweighed the benefits of the proposed rezoning. The court also found that the developer had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in significant adverse impacts on the surrounding environment and community.
The orders of the court were that the developer's application to challenge the Council's decision to refuse the rezoning application be dismissed with costs. The court also ordered that the developer pay the Council's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [4] below
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.