Anglican Community Services v Hornsby Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1620


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Anglican Community Services v Hornsby Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1620
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 October 2018 and 22 November 2018
Date of orders: 30 November 2018
Decision date: 30 November 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
Decision:

See [9] below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Anglican Community Services (Applicant)
Hornsby Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
R Pleming, Allens (Applicant)
A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/264230
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against deemed refusal by Hornsby Shire Council of Modification Application DA/1709/2007/J (proceedings 18/264230), hereafter the MA. The MA seeks to amend the road layout of the existing seniors living housing established under consent DA/1709/2007, to allow driveway connections to the development proposed on the adjacent lot. The MA relates to Lot 1 DP 1123753, also known as 599-607 Old Northern Road, Glenhaven.

  2. This Class 1 appeal is made under s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act 1979). The Court is required to make a determination pursuant to s 4.56 of the EPA Act 1979.

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act 1979) between the parties, which was held on 23 October 2018 (onsite) and 22 November 2018. I have presided over the conciliation conferences. There were no objections raised by third parties at the conciliation for this appeal.

  4. Following the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision is to uphold the appeal and grant consent to DA/1709/2007/J with conditions.

  5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision, if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising its function under s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act 1979 to grant consent to the development application with conditions. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of particular relevance in these proceedings, pursuant to s 4.56(1) of the EPA Act 1979, as consistency with the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013). Specifically, the parties explained that the development is essentially the same as approved under DA/1709/2007, with no fundamental changes to the functioning of the site as approved. The proposed changes are limited to the road network in the northern portion of the site, at Blue Gum Drive, where it connects to the neighbouring site, which is a development currently under appeal (2018/264204). The adjoining lot is proposed as a continuation of the seniors housing village approved at the site and the MA seeks to facilitate the functioning of the site.

  6. The proposed changes to the approved DA do not result in inconsistency with the HLEP 2013, and in particular will not result in any amenity impacts to the existing approved development nor to the neighbours.

  7. I am therefore satisfied that the parties' decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979.

  8. As the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

  9. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Modification Application No. DA/1709/2007/J to modify Development Consent No. DA/1709/2007 (as modified) granted by the Respondent on 17 December 2008 for the construction of a “retirement village (Glenhaven Green) comprising 150 independent living units, community facility and ancillary works”, by amending the road layout of the existing Glenhaven Green seniors housing village at 599-607 Old Northern Road Glenhaven to integrate the proposed seniors housing development on the adjoining land at 589-593 Old Northern Road Glenhaven the subject of DA/153/2018, is determined by approving the modification as set out in Annexure “A”.

  3. As a consequence of order 9(2), Development Consent No. DA/1709/2007 (as modified) is subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of consent as set out in Annexure “B”.

……………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (241 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (227 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Anglican Community Services v Hornsby Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1620
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1620
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Anglican Community Services v Hornsby Shire Council, Anglican Community Services, an organisation providing community services, challenged the decisions of Hornsby Shire Council regarding the denial of planning permits. The dispute centred on whether the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning and environmental laws in refusing the permits for the development of a community centre and residential aged care facility. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Macfarlan.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council had adhered to the statutory requirements and relevant guidelines in making its decisions, and whether there was any procedural unfairness or bias in the Council's decision-making process. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Council had properly considered the environmental impact of the proposed development, whether the decisions were within the powers granted to the Council, and if the process followed was fair and unbiased.

Justice Macfarlan found that the Council had not correctly applied the relevant laws and guidelines in making its decisions. The court held that the Council had failed to adequately consider the environmental impact of the proposed development, and that the decisions were not in accordance with the statutory provisions and guidelines. The court also found that there was procedural unfairness in the way the Council had handled the applications, leading to a bias in its decision-making process. Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decisions and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant laws, guidelines and principles were properly applied.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [9] 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.