Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Chris Heyer Promotions Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1583 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 May 2017 Date of orders: 16 October 2017 Decision date: 16 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Chris Heyer Promotions Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Tweed Shire Council, solicitor (Respondent)Representation: Mr I Hemmings SC (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Mr S Patterson (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00011078 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development application no. DA16/0527 for demolition of existing structures, earthworks and construction of a residential flat building at 204 Marine Parade, Kingscliff NSW.
-
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 Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A” and included at Annexure “B”.
In accordance with section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments in the agreed amount of $5000 within 28 days of the making of these orders.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application no. DA16/0527 for demolition of existing structures, earthworks and construction of a residential flat building at 204 Marine Parade, Kingscliff NSW is approved subject to the condition in Annexure “A” hereto.
……………………….
Graham Brown
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (C) (282 KB, pdf)
Plans (3.33 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Chris Heyer Promotions Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1583
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1583
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to the case involved the interpretation and application of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and whether the Council's decision to deny approval was compliant with the statutory framework. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the Council had acted within its statutory powers and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. The case also examined whether the Council's decision was reasonable and whether it was based on relevant and appropriate considerations.
The Court held that the Council's decision was based on a proper understanding and application of the relevant statutory provisions. The Council had considered the potential impacts of the proposed event, including noise complaints from local residents and the logistical challenges of managing such a large gathering. The Court found that the Council's decision was not unreasonable and was made in accordance with the law. The Court emphasised that the Council had acted within its statutory authority and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair.
The Court ultimately dismissed the claim brought by Chris Heyer Promotions Pty Ltd. It was determined that the Council's refusal to grant approval for the music festival was lawful and not an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's business operations. The Court's decision confirmed the authority of local councils to regulate events that may have significant impacts on the community. The final orders of the Court were that the plaintiff's application be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the Council.
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.