7 Rivendell Way Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1166


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: 7 Rivendell Way Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1166
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 April 2018
Date of orders: 05 April 2018
Decision date: 05 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Adam AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: subdivision; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Community Land Development Act 1989
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: 7 Rivendell Way Pty Ltd (Applicant)
The Hills Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Philip Clay SC (Applicant)

Solicitor:
Maureen Peatman, Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Applicant)
Adam Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/116067
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 appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application 1328/2017/ZD for subdivision of Lots 1025 and 1006 DP 263587 being 7 Rivendell Way and 15 Linksley Avenue, Glenhaven into 2 Torrens title lots, demolition of the existing buildings on proposed Lot 1 and resubdivision under the Community Land Development Act 1989 of proposed Lot 1 into 12 lots (including the community property lot) over two stages, is approved subject to conditions contained in Annexure "A".

……………………….

Paul Adam

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (310 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
7 Rivendell Way Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1166
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, 7 Rivendell Way Pty Ltd, filed a lawsuit against The Hills Shire Council, seeking to overturn the council's decision to deny an application for a development approval. The plaintiff sought to construct a new house and associated works on a property located at 7 Rivendell Way, Kenthurst, in the Hills Shire. The dispute was heard and determined by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues in this case centred on whether the council's decision to deny the application was unreasonable and whether the plaintiff's application for development approval should have been approved. The court was required to examine the evidence presented, the applicable planning laws, and the relevant planning policies and guidelines to determine whether the council's decision was lawful and reasonable.

The court found that the council's decision to deny the application was not unreasonable, as it was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and applicable planning laws and policies. The court held that the proposed development was not in accordance with the relevant planning scheme and would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the area. The court also found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the proposed development was in the public interest or that it would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review and upheld the council's decision to deny the application for development approval. The court made no orders as to costs.

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.