Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: HBU Projects No 2 Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1450 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7, 14 and 28 June 2018; 30 July 2018 Date of orders: 21 August 2018 Decision date: 21 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: HBU Projects No 2 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Lake Macquarie City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
G Long, Long Legal (Applicant)
S Lucy, Lake Macquarie City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/75929 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by HBU Projects No 2 Pty Ltd against the actual refusal by Lake Macquarie City Council of DA/1582/2017 for proposed multi-dwelling housing at 37 Wilsons Road, Mount Hutton (Lot 103 DP 1076796).
-
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant be granted leave to rely upon the following amended plans:
Plan
Drawing
Revision
Date
1.1
Architectural Plans
2.08.2018
(a)
Cover sheet
DA-001
J
(b)
Roof Analysis Plan
DA-001
J
(c)
Lot Plan
DA-100
J
(d)
Ground Floor Site Plan
DA-101
J
(e)
First Floor Site Plan
DA-102
J
(f)
Elevations
DA-201
J
DA-202
J
DA-203
J
(g)
Unit 01-03 Plans
DA-104
J
(h)
Unit 01-03 Elevations
DA-402
J
(i)
Unit 01-03 Section
DA-402
J
(j)
Unit 04-03 Plans
DA-404
J
(k)
Unit 04-06 Elevations
DA-405
J
(l)
Unit 04-06 Sections
DA-406
J
(m)
Unit 07 Plans
DA-407
J
(n)
Unit 07 Elevations and Section
DA-408
J
(o)
Sun Diagrams
DA-500
J
(p)
Materials Selection
DA-501
J
DA-502
J
1.2
Landscape Plans
8.08.2018
(a)
Cover Sheet
L000
K
(b)
Landscape Plan
L301
K
(c)
Landscape Details
L401
G
(d)
Indicative Plant Schedule
L501
H
1.3 (a)
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan
C01
8
7.08.2018
(b)
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Details
C02
5
1.4 (a)
Stormwater Plan
C03
8
7.08.2018
(b)
Stormwater Details
C04
5
1.5 (a)
Turning Path Entry Plan Sheet 1
T01
3
7.08.2018
(b)
Turning Path Entry Plan Sheet 2
T02
3
(c)
Turning Path Entry Plan Sheet 3
T03
3
(d)
Turning Path Exit Plan Sheet 1
T04
3
(e)
Turning Path Exit Plan Sheet 2
T05
3
(f)
Turning Path Exit Plan Sheet 3
T06
3
The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed in the sum of $5,000 within 30 days from the date of these Orders.
The appeal be upheld.
Development consent be granted to DA/1582/2017, as amended, for multi-dwelling housing at Lot 103 DP 1076796, 37 Wilsons Road, Mount Hutton subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.
……………………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (63.2 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- HBU Projects No 2 Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1450
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1450
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to approve the development was unreasonable. This involved examining whether the council had adhered to the correct legal principles in making its decision and had considered all relevant factors. The applicant contended that the council had failed to properly consider the applicant's environmental impact statement, which had been independently assessed and approved by the relevant authorities.
In its judgment, the court found that the council had indeed failed to properly consider the applicant's environmental impact statement. The court held that the council's decision was unreasonable as it did not take into account the independent assessment of the environmental impact statement. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration, with specific directions to ensure that the environmental impact statement was properly considered. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the proper consideration of all relevant factors in the planning approval process.
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.