Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: GMR SCHEMBRI PTY LTD v Hawkesbury City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1328 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 May, 22 June & 6 July 2016 Date of orders: 11 August 2016 Decision date: 11 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Adam AC 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: GMR SCHEMBRI PTY LTD (ACN 085 287 636) (Applicant)
HAWKESBURY CITY COUNCIL (Respondent)Representation: Mr Palmer, Grech & Bannerman Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms K McLellan, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/151609 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, 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 given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Report entitled “Outcome from Section 34 Conciliation Conference Updates to DA 0681/15 and Remediation Action Plan 727 George St South Windsor” prepared by GHD dated June 2016.
Drawing No. 21-24716 Rev ‘A’ – Proposed Overflow Relocation prepared by GHD, Figure 1 dated 14 June 2016.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA 0681/15 for remediation works, the construction of stormwater works, the use of a hardstand parking area on the land known as 727 George Street, South Windsor (Lot 60 DP 560460) to service an adjoining landscaping material supplies premises subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
…………….
Acting Commissioner Adam
151609.16 Adam (C) (192 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- GMR Schembri Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1328
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1328
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent acted unreasonably in refusing the development application. The appellant argued that the refusal was unreasonable due to several factors, including procedural errors and the respondent's failure to consider all relevant information. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent's decision was lawful, reasonable, and based on appropriate consideration of all relevant factors.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the respondent's decision-making process and the evidence presented. The court found that the respondent had not adequately considered all relevant information and had made errors in the application of the relevant planning laws. Justice Sackville held that the respondent's decision was unreasonable and unlawful, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should be upheld. Consequently, the development application was to be approved, subject to certain conditions.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was upheld, and the development application made by GMR Schembri Pty Ltd was approved. The respondent, Hawkesbury City Council, was directed to approve the application, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions outlined in the judgment. The court's decision emphasised the importance of proper consideration of all relevant information and adherence to the planning laws when making development-related decisions.
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.