Australian Development Investments Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 605 033 074 v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1567


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

  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, 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 applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans prepared by Wood & Grieve Engineers dated 11 October 2016:

  1. General Arrangement Plan (number C-101 Revision 10);

  2. Stormwater Drainage Plans (numbers C-201 to C-208 Revision 06);

  3. Stormwater Drainage Standard Details (number C-211 Revision 05);

  4. Stormwater Drainage Longsections (numbers C-221 to C-223 Revision 06);

  5. Stormwater Drainage - Information Tables (number C-225 Revision 05);

  6. Temporary Basin Sections (number C-226 Revision 01); and

  7. Stormwater Catchment Plan (number C-231 Revision 05).

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended landscape plans prepared by Arcadia Landscape Architecture dated October 2016 (12 sheets).

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. 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)

Details
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

In the matter of Australian Development Investments Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as Australian Development Investments Holdings, against Blacktown City Council, the case was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the validity of a notice issued by the Council under the Local Government Act 1993, requiring the appellant to demolish certain buildings located on their property. The respondent claimed that the notice was lawful as the buildings were deemed to be in a state of dilapidation, posing a risk to public safety.

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.