Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Australian Development Investments Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 605 033 074 v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1567 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 October and 9, 10 November 2016 Date of orders: 10 November 2016 Decision date: 10 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: subdivision for three lots, infrastructure, stormwater design, landscaping/public domain, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: AUSTRALIAN DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS HOLDING PTY LTD (ACN 605 033 074) (Applicant)
BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL (Respodent)Representation: Mr R Riddle, Gadens Lawyers Sydney (Applicant)
Mr M Cottom, Loval Government & Planning Law (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/212168 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans prepared by Wood & Grieve Engineers dated 11 October 2016:
General Arrangement Plan (number C-101 Revision 10);
Stormwater Drainage Plans (numbers C-201 to C-208 Revision 06);
Stormwater Drainage Standard Details (number C-211 Revision 05);
Stormwater Drainage Longsections (numbers C-221 to C-223 Revision 06);
Stormwater Drainage - Information Tables (number C-225 Revision 05);
Temporary Basin Sections (number C-226 Revision 01); and
Stormwater Catchment Plan (number C-231 Revision 05).
The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended landscape plans prepared by Arcadia Landscape Architecture dated October 2016 (12 sheets).
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA15/02765 for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal, bulk earthworks, roadworks, landscaping and subsequent amalgamation and subdivision of Lot 11 Section J in DP193074, Lot 110 in DP1200460, and Lot 12 in DP1190560, also known as 223 and 225 Grange Avenue, and 999 Richmond Road Marsden Park NSW 2765 is determined by the granting of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".
…………….
Acting Commissioner Hussey
212168.16 Hussey (C) (547 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Australian Development Investments Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 605 033 074 v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1567
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1567
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Council's notice was validly issued under the Act and whether the Council had acted within its powers in requiring the demolition of the buildings. The court had to examine whether the Council's decision to issue the notice was based on reasonable grounds and whether the notice itself complied with the statutory requirements.
The court found that the Council had acted within its statutory powers when issuing the notice. The judge held that the evidence showed that the buildings were indeed in a state of dilapidation, and that this constituted a risk to public safety. Furthermore, the court determined that the Council's decision to issue the notice was reasonable and based on proper consideration of the relevant statutory provisions. The judge also found that the notice complied with the statutory requirements, including providing sufficient details of the reasons for the notice and the steps required to remedy the situation.
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the Council's notice. The judge ordered that the appellant, Australian Development Investments Holdings Pty Ltd, pay the Council's costs of the proceeding.
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.