Bowtell v Port Stephens Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1392


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Bowtell v Port Stephens Council [2018] NSWLEC 1392
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 July 2018
Date of orders: 30 July 2018
Decision date: 30 July 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – application to modify a court granted consent - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Laurie Bowtell (Applicant)
Port Stephens Council (First Respondent)
Environment Protection Authority (Second Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G Long, Long Legal Pty Ltd (Applicant)
A Pickup, Local Government Legal (1st Respondent)
I Krynina, Environment Protection Authority (2nd Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/44495
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an application by Mr Bowtell to modify a development consent granted by the Court on 15 March 2017 in proceedings 165266 of 2016 for a rural industry (including organic composting) at Lot 2 DP 1108702, 13 Barleigh Ranch Way, Eagleton (DA 16-2012-630-1). That consent contained deferred commencement conditions that were required to be satisfied within 12 months of the grant of consent. On 26 February 2018 in proceedings number 2018/44602, the Court made an order extending by 12 months the time by which the applicant is required to satisfy the deferred commencement conditions.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 application is granted.

  2. Development Consent No. 16-2012-630-1 for a Rural Industry (including Organic Composting) at Lot 2, DP1108702, 13 Barleigh Ranch Way, Eagleton, is modified as follows:-

  1. by deleting deferred commencement conditions 4 and 6 from Part A;

  2. the insertion of a new condition 4A after the existing condition 4 in Part B that reads as follows:-

"All relevant approvals and licences are to be obtained from the Department of Primary Industry – Office of Water for water supply works and/or use under the Water Management Act 2000."

  1. Development Consent No. 16-2012-630-1A is now subject to the consolidated conditions of consent in Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Gray

Annexure A (C)

Amendments

03 August 2018 - Correct, updated version uploaded.

Details
AGLC
Bowtell v Port Stephens Council [2018] NSWLEC 1392
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1392
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bowtell v Port Stephens Council, the plaintiff sought to challenge the decisions of the Council regarding the approval of a subdivision plan. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Bowtell, was concerned that the Council's approval of the subdivision plan would lead to significant environmental damage, particularly to the local wetlands, and that the approval process was not in line with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Council argued that its decisions were based on a proper assessment of the environmental impacts and were in compliance with the relevant legislation.

The court was required to determine whether the Council's approval of the subdivision plan was lawful and whether the process followed was in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The key legal issue was whether the Council had adequately considered the potential environmental impacts of the subdivision and whether it had acted in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the action and whether the relief sought was appropriate.

The court found that the Council had not adequately considered the environmental impacts of the subdivision and that its approval process was not in compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The court held that the plaintiff had standing to bring the action and that the relief sought was appropriate. The court quashed the Council's approval of the subdivision plan and ordered that the matter be remitted back to the Council for further consideration in accordance with the Act. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.