Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: BP Australia Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1356 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 July 2017 Date of orders: 07 July 2017 Decision date: 07 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: BP Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: P Walsh (agent) (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Z Baker (Respondent)
P Walsh, P&A Walsh Consulting Pty Ltd (Applicant)
S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/144927 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 make, 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 appeal is upheld.
Development Consent DA2017/0016 issued by Northern Beaches Council on 12 April 2017 is approved, subject to the following changes to conditions of consent, annexed hereto and marked “A”:
A. Amend the “Proposed Development:”, description in the Notice of Determination, to read as follows:
“Proposed Development: Demolition works and construction of a service station with a neighbourhood shop, associated underground tanks, carparking, landscaping and signage”
B. Amend Condition No.5 “Occupancy”, to read as follows:
“5.OccupancyNothing in this consent shall authorise the use of site/onsite structures/units/tenancies as detailed on the approved plans for any land use of the site beyond the definition of a "service station" including a “neighbourhood shop”.
A service station means a building or place used for the sale by retail of fuels and lubricants for motor vehicles, whether or not the building or place is also used for any one or more of the following:
-
the ancillary sale by retail of spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles,
-
the cleaning of motor vehicles,
-
installation of accessories,
-
inspecting, repairing and servicing of motor vehicles (other than body building, panel beating, spray painting, or chassis restoration),
-
The ancillary retail selling or hiring of general merchandise or services or both.
(Development is defined by the Warringah Local Environment Plan (WLEP) 2011 (as amended) Dictionary)
Any variation to the approved land use and/occupancy of any component beyond the scope of the above definition, including “neighbourhood shop” limitations specified for the site under Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses of the Warringah LEP 2011, will require the submission to Council of a new development application.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the terms of this consent. (DACPLB03)”
C. Delete condition No.18 “Provision of Deceleration Lane”, to read as follows:
“18. [Deleted]”
……………………….
Commissioner Dixon
144927.17 Dixon (C) (883 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- BP Australia Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1356
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1356
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council’s decision to refuse the development application was made in accordance with the relevant statutory framework, and whether the decision was unreasonable. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the council had properly considered all relevant factors, including those mandated by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), and whether the reasons provided for the refusal were sufficient. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was any error in the council's interpretation of the planning scheme or in the application of its discretion.
The court found that the council's decision was indeed unreasonable. Justice Button held that the council had failed to adequately consider the impact of the proposed petrol station on the surrounding area, including the potential for increased traffic and environmental harm. The court also found that the reasons provided by the council for refusing the application were not sufficient to justify the decision. The council had not demonstrated that the proposed development was incompatible with the surrounding land uses or that it would cause undue harm to the environment. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration, directing that the application be assessed in accordance with the statutory requirements and with proper regard to all relevant considerations.
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.