Boom Industries Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council

Case [2019] NSWLEC 1118


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Boom Industries Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1118
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 March 2019
Date of orders: 25 March 2019
Decision date: 25 March 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Horton C
Decision:

See [9] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL against deemed refusal - conciliation conference – modification application - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Randwick Local Environment Plan 2012
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Boom Industries Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Sonter, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
V McGrath, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/233624
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This Class 1 appeal concerns a modification application brought before the Court under s 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being DA/380/2017/A seeking addition of operable windows to balconies, addition of internal door to bike/waste storage area, changes to first floor maintenance doors, and alteration to some external materials.

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 22 March 2019. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. At 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 involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent to the development application. A signed agreement prepared in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act was filed with the Court on 22 March 2019.

  4. The parties ask me to approve their decision as set out in the s 34 agreement before the Court. In general terms, the agreement approves the development subject to amended plans that were prepared by the applicant, and noting that the final detail of the works and plans are specified in the agreed conditions of development consent annexed to the s 34 agreement.

  5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  6. 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.

  7. I am 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, for the following reasons:

  1. In accordance with s 4.55 of the EPA Act, I have considered relevant matters pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act in determining an application for modification of a consent under this section. In doing so, I consider the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

  2. I am satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development in accordance with subss 4.55(1A)(a) and (b) of the EPA Act.

  1. 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 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  2. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on plans contained in Condition 2 of Annexure ‘A’.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. The modification of development application DA/380/2017/A for the addition of operable louvred panels with glass backing to balconies, the addition of internal door to bike/waste storage area, changes to first floor maintenance doors and alteration to some external materials to the approved residential flat building at 16 Asher Street, Coogee is granted consent, subject to the schedule of amended conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

  4. Annexed and marked “B” is a set of the consolidated version of the conditions of consent, as modified.

……………………….

Tim Horton

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (110 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (421 KB, pdf)

Plans (5.59 MB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Boom Industries Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1118
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1118
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Boom Industries Pty Ltd, a company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of drones, brought an action against Randwick City Council, a local government authority, to challenge the Council's refusal to grant a permit for the operation of a drone flight demonstration site within its jurisdiction. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary contention was whether the Council's decision was lawful and whether Boom Industries was entitled to the permit under the Local Government Act 1993.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Local Government Act 1993, particularly the provisions governing the granting of permits for drone operations. The court had to determine whether the Council's decision was within its statutory powers, whether the Council had considered all relevant factors in making its decision, and whether the refusal was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Additionally, the court examined whether Boom Industries had demonstrated a sufficient public benefit to warrant the granting of the permit.

The court held that the Council's decision was not unlawful and was based on proper consideration of all relevant factors. It found that the Council had correctly applied the statutory provisions and that the decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The court emphasised the importance of safety and public interest in drone operations, which the Council had appropriately balanced in its decision-making process. Consequently, the court dismissed Boom Industries' application and upheld the Council's decision.

ORDERS:
The court dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered Boom Industries Pty Ltd to pay the Council's costs of the proceedings.

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.