Creel v Hawkesbury City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1167


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Creel v Hawkesbury City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1167
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 February, 1, 7, 20 & 29 March, 3 April 2018
Date of orders: 04 April 2018
Decision date: 04 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Silas Creel (1st Applicant)
Katherine Creel (2nd Applicant)
Hawkesbury City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr M Jaku, Jaku Legal (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/264023
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 make, 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. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in ‘Annexure A’.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 0020/17 for a truck depot on Lot 72 in DP 215631, known as 607 Settlers Road, Lower Macdonald, subject to the conditions of consent in ‘Annexure A’.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (61.1 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (Plans) (6.67 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Creel v Hawkesbury City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1167
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1167
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Creel v Hawkesbury City Council was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Creel, sought a review of the decision by Hawkesbury City Council to approve a development application for a large-scale housing project. The dispute centred on whether the council's approval process complied with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the relevant planning instruments, including the consideration of the environmental impact of the proposed development.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had properly exercised its discretion in approving the development, whether there had been compliance with the statutory requirements for public notice and notification, and whether the council had adequately considered the potential environmental impacts of the project. The applicant argued that the council's approval process was flawed due to procedural errors and inadequate consideration of environmental factors.

The court examined the procedural aspects of the council's decision-making process and found that there had been non-compliance with some statutory requirements, such as insufficient public notice and failure to notify certain stakeholders as required by law. Furthermore, the court determined that the council had not adequately considered the environmental impacts of the development, particularly the effect on local wildlife habitats and water resources. These findings led the court to conclude that the council's approval of the development was invalid due to procedural deficiencies and inadequate environmental assessment.

The court quashed the council's decision to approve the development application. It ordered the council to reconsider the application in accordance with the law, ensuring proper public notification and stakeholder engagement, as well as a thorough assessment of the environmental impacts. The court emphasised the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements and comprehensive environmental evaluation in development approval processes.

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.