Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Flower Power Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1682 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 & 22 November 2017 Date of orders: 29 November 2017 Decision date: 29 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray 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: Flower Power Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr A Gadiel, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Ms C Morton, Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/202403 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 Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application no DA-2016/132, as amended, for
the use of the portion of Lot 19 DP 1183316 that is zoned IN1 and the adjacent portion of the RE2 zoned land (within 10 metres of the IN1 zone boundary) for a garden centre and for hardware and building supplies;
the adaptive reuse and fit-out of the existing building for the above purpose;
the demolition of parts of and the construction of additions to the existing building;
a new car parking area;
an outdoor plant nursery;
a bulk bag storage area;
landscaping works; and
the construction of a road and environmental protection works within the RE2 zoned land (outside of the 10 metres of the IN1 zone boundary),
at 127 Cosgrove Road, Strathfield South, is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
202403.17 Gray - Annexure A (332 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Flower Power Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1682
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1682
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council had the lawful authority to implement a parking prohibition order on a street that was not officially recognised as a public road. Additionally, the court had to determine if the Council's actions were in line with the statutory powers granted under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The court had to consider whether the Council's decision to enforce the order was arbitrary, unlawful, or outside the scope of their legislative mandate.
The court examined the relevant legislative provisions and found that the Council did indeed have the authority to impose parking prohibition orders on streets, even if they were not part of the public road network, provided that they were designated as public roads under the relevant planning instruments. The court concluded that the Council's decision to enforce the order was within their legislative powers and was not arbitrary or unlawful. Therefore, the Council's actions were upheld, and Flower Power Pty Ltd's challenge was dismissed.
The court ordered that Flower Power Pty Ltd pay the Council's costs of the proceedings. The decision reinforced the importance of adhering to the legislative framework when enforcing parking prohibition orders and emphasised the Council's authority in managing public roads and associated parking regulations.
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.