Triple Blue Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 27

Triple Blue Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 27

Andrew Gray and Emma Gray were joined because the Heritage Issue, concerning the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of their heritage item Rothesay, had not been sufficiently addressed by the Council or Triple Blue despite being a mandatory consideration. The material showed at best cursory consideration and no real engagement with the issue, and the Court should not determine it solely on the Intervenors' material without an active contradictor. The View Issue did not justify joinder because it had been sufficiently considered by the Council and Triple Blue with the benefit of the Intervenors' submissions. The delay in bringing the motion was unfortunate but...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal; Notice of Motion for Joinder / Application by Andrew Gray and Emma Gray to Be Joined as Parties After a S 34 Conciliation Conference and Before Any S 34 Agreement Was Provided to the Court
Outcome
Joinder granted, limited at this juncture to the Heritage Issue; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['joinder of Parties' 'development Appeal' 'heritage Impacts' 'view Impacts' 'section 34 Conciliation Conference']
['civil Procedure' 'planning and Environment Law'] ['joinder of Parties' 'development Appeal' 'heritage Impacts' 'view Impacts' 'section 34 Conciliation Conference']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Development Appeal; Notice of Motion for Joinder / Application by Andrew Gray and Emma Gray to Be Joined as Parties After a S 34 Conciliation Conference and Before Any S 34 Agreement Was Provided to the Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Andrew Gray and Emma Gray were able to raise an issue that should be considered in the appeal but would not be likely to be sufficiently addressed if they were not joined as parties under s 8.15(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the Heritage Issue concerning impacts on the heritage significance of Rothesay justified joinder.' 'Whether the View Issue concerning views to Sydney Harbour and cl 26 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 justified joinder.' 'Whether delay in bringing the joinder application and any consequential cost or delay should preclude joinder.']

Ratio Decidendi

Andrew Gray and Emma Gray were joined because the Heritage Issue, concerning the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of their heritage item Rothesay, had not been sufficiently addressed by the Council or Triple Blue despite being a mandatory consideration. The material showed at best cursory consideration and no real engagement with the issue, and the Court should not determine it solely on the Intervenors' material without an active contradictor. The View Issue did not justify joinder because it had been sufficiently considered by the Council and Triple Blue with the benefit of the Intervenors' submissions. The delay in bringing the motion was unfortunate but...

Court Disposition

Joinder granted, limited at this juncture to the Heritage Issue; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Andrew Gray and Emma Gray are joined as parties to these proceedings.' 'Andrew Gray and Emma Gray are directed to file a statement of facts and contentions raising for determination whether there is an unacceptable impact from the proposed development upon the heritage significance of the heritage item known as...