Gunlake Concrete Pty Limited v Bayside Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1178


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gunlake Concrete Pty Limited v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1178
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 February, 5, 28 March 2017
Date of orders: 06 April 2017
Decision date: 06 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction and operation of a concrete batching plant; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Gunlake Concrete Pty Limited (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Advocates
Mr C McEwen SC (Applicant)
Mr M Staunton, barrister (Respondent)

Solicitors
Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/340542
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development consent DA 2016/39/1 for the construction and operation of a concrete batching plant at 2 Anderson Street, Banksmeadow.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend its application in accordance with the amended plans and documents listed in condition 2 of Annexure "A".

  2. In full and final settlement of the Respondent’s claim for costs under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs under section 97B, agreed in the amount of $50,000, within 28 days of these orders.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development consent DA 2016/39/1 for the construction and operation of a concrete batching plant at 2 Anderson Street, Banksmeadow is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.   

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

340542.16 Brown (C) (480 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Gunlake Concrete Pty Limited v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1178
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1178
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gunlake Concrete Pty Limited v Bayside Council was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Gunlake Concrete Pty Limited, sought to challenge the decision of the defendant, Bayside Council, to refuse permission for Gunlake to construct a concrete batching plant on their property. The crux of the dispute was whether the refusal was lawful under the relevant planning scheme and if it was justified on the basis of environmental concerns.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Bayside Council had correctly exercised its discretion in denying the development application and whether the decision was reasonable and lawful. Gunlake argued that the refusal was arbitrary and not in accordance with the planning scheme, while Bayside Council contended that the decision was justified due to environmental impacts and potential harm to neighbouring properties.

The court found that the Bayside Council's decision was based on inadequate assessment of the environmental impact and was not in accordance with the planning scheme. The court noted that the evidence presented by Gunlake demonstrated that the proposed concrete batching plant would not significantly harm the environment or nearby properties. The reasoning of the court hinged on the improper consideration of the environmental impact assessments and the lack of justification for the refusal under the planning scheme. As a result, the court ruled that the Bayside Council's decision was unreasonable and unlawful.

In light of the findings, the court quashed the Bayside Council's decision to refuse the development application and ordered that the application be reconsidered in accordance with the planning scheme. The court further directed the Bayside Council to provide Gunlake with detailed reasons for any further refusal, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements. This ruling underscores the importance of thorough and lawful decision-making processes in planning approvals.

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.