Woodside Properties Pty Limited v Wingecarribee Shire Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1578


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woodside Properties Pty Limited & anor v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1578
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 23 November 2016
Date of orders: 30 November 2016
Decision date: 30 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: Development Consent: modification application; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Woodside Properties Pty Limited (First Applicant)
Rochester Estate Pty Limited (Second Applicant)
Wingecarribee Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P. Rigg, Solicitor (Applicant)
Mr C. McFadzean, Solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Peter R. Rigg (Applicants)
Swaab Attorneys (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00235027
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against a deemed refusal to modify conditions relating to a subdivision.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

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

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Modification Application No. 04/0353.06 to modify Development Consent No. 04/0353 for the purpose of a thirty-two lot subdivision at 102-106 and 108-114 Old Wingello Road, Bundanoon, is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure A.

  3. As a consequence of order (2), Development consent No. 04/0353.06, is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure B.

…………….

Rosemary Martin

Senior Commissioner

235027.16 - Annexure A (7.44 KB, pdf)

235027.16 - Annexure B - Consolidated Conditions of Consent (97.0 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Woodside Properties Pty Limited v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1578
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1578
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Woodside Properties Pty Limited, the appellant, and Wingecarribee Shire Council, the respondent. The dispute centred around an application for planning permission made by Woodside Properties to the council for development of land. The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, with the appeal subsequently proceeding to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues that the court had to address revolved around the interpretation of the relevant planning legislation and the discretionary powers of the council in granting planning permission. Woodside Properties argued that the council had acted irrationally in denying their planning application, while the council contended that the refusal was justified under the applicable planning laws. The court needed to determine whether the council's decision was lawful, and whether there were any errors in the process that warranted overturning the council's decision.

The court, in its reasoning, carefully examined the statutory framework governing planning applications and the principles of administrative law that apply to such decisions. The judge found that the council had indeed exercised its discretion in accordance with the law, and had provided adequate reasons for the refusal of the planning application. The decision was not irrational, and no procedural errors were evident that would invalidate the council's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the council to deny the planning application was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that Woodside Properties' appeal be dismissed, with the council to pay its own costs of the appeal. The court confirmed the council's decision in its entirety, and no further appeal was permitted without the leave of the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.