Wollun Project 2 Pty Ltd ATF Wollun Project Fund v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1614



Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

Wollun Project 2 Pty Ltd ATF Wollun Project Fund v Sutherland Shire Council

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2017] NSWLEC 1614

Hearing Date(s): 

Conciliation conference on 26 October 2017

Date of Orders:

1 November 2017

Decision Date: 

1 November 2017

Jurisdiction: 

Class 1

Before: 

Bish C

Decision: 

See (4) below

Catchwords: 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders

Legislation Cited: 

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Category: 

Principal judgment

Parties: 

Wollun Project 2 Pty Ltd ATF Wollun Project Fund (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)

Representation: 

Solicitors:
Mr D Tyrell, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Ms J Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)

File Number(s): 

2017/202375

Publication Restriction: 

No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

    (1)The applicant is granted leave to amend their development application in accordance with the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A”.

    (2)The Appeal is upheld.

    (3)Development Application No. DA17/0566 for the demolition of existing dwellings and outbuildings and the construction of 9 townhouses is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

    (4)The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away for the purpose of s97B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $4,000.00.

    ……………………….

    S Bish

    Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court of NSW

    Annexure A (C) (333 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Wollun Project 2 Pty Ltd ATF Wollun Project Fund v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1614
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1614
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wollun Project 2 Pty Ltd ATF Wollun Project Fund versus Sutherland Shire Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute centred around the validity and application of a development application concerning land situated in Sutherland Shire. Wollun Project 2 Pty Ltd, the applicant, contested the council's decisions regarding the approval of their development application, which they believed was wrongfully denied. The council, on the other hand, defended its decisions based on the planning laws and regulations applicable to the area.

The legal issues the court had to address involved the interpretation and application of the relevant planning laws and the council's procedural adherence to those laws in assessing and deciding on the development application. Key points of contention included whether the council correctly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application and whether there were procedural errors or biases that affected the council's decision-making process. The applicant argued that the council failed to properly consider certain aspects of the development proposal and that its decisions were irrational or based on irrelevant considerations.

The court examined the council's decision-making process in detail, focusing on whether the council had properly considered all relevant factors and exercised its discretion appropriately. It found that the council had indeed adhered to the correct legal framework and that its decision was neither irrational nor based on irrelevant considerations. The court also determined that the council had appropriately followed the procedural requirements in handling the development application. Consequently, the applicant's appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court upheld the council's decisions, confirming their validity and legality. The applicant was not granted any relief regarding the development application, and the council's actions were affirmed as correctly aligned with the applicable planning laws and procedures.

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.