Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: HENLONG PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD v HORNSBY SHIRE COUNCIL [2016] NSWLEC 1255 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 May 2016 Date of orders: 27 May 2016 Decision date: 27 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon 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: Henlong Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Hornsby Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr G. McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr P. Jackson, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 151941 of 2016 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 are:
The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended Plan of Subdivision No. 75633, prepared by Rygate Surveyors Revision ‘K’ dated 12 May, 2016.
The appeal is upheld.
Deferred Commencement Development Consent pursuant to s80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is granted to DA No. 94/2013 as amended for the subdivision of land, being Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 847605, known as Nos. 79 – 87 Malton Road, Beecroft, into six (6) separate Torrens Title allotments of land, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure ‘A’ hereto.
…………….
Commissioner Dixon
151941.16 Dixon (C) (315 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Henlong Property Group Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1255
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1255
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the zoning decision was procedurally fair and whether it was based on proper consideration of the statutory criteria. The plaintiff argued that the Council failed to adequately consider the impact of the zoning on their property and that the decision was therefore invalid. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the process leading up to the decision was flawed, as they were not given an adequate opportunity to respond to the submissions made against their development application.
In delivering the judgment, the court examined the procedural fairness of the zoning decision, noting that the Council had provided the plaintiff with an opportunity to respond to the submissions made against their development application. The court found that while the process was not perfect, it was sufficient to ensure that the plaintiff had a fair opportunity to present their case. The court also assessed the substantive merits of the zoning decision, determining that the Council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the statutory criteria. The court concluded that the decision was reasonable and just, and therefore upheld the Council's zoning decision.
Given the court's findings, the plaintiff's application for review of the zoning decision was dismissed. The court found no grounds to set aside the decision made by Hornsby Shire Council. The judgment reinforced the principle that local councils have broad discretion in zoning matters, provided that their decisions are procedurally fair and are based on proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria.
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.