Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: MTE Developments Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1609 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7, 12, 27 October, 1 November & 9 December 2016 Date of orders: 09 December 2016 Decision date: 09 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Community Title Subdivision (“rural cluster”) comprising 21 lots, community association, new access road, remnant woodland, flora and fauna impacts, bushfire protection/risk, onsite waste disposal, Aboriginal heritage impacts, contamination, traffic, storm water runoff, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: MTE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD & SFN PROJECTS PTY LTD (Applicant)
THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL (Respondent)Representation: Mr G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/154277 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 amend the development application and rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A” to this agreement.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA 250/2016/ZD for a rural cluster community title subdivision creating 20 residential lots and 1 community association lot at 579 – 593 Halcrows Road, Cattai, NSW is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.
The Applicant is to pay to the Respondent costs in the amount of $5,000.00 pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
…………….
Acting Commissioner Hussey
154277.16 Hussey (C) Annexure A (304 KB, pdf)
154277.16 Hussey (C) - Annexure B to conditions (579 KB, pdf)
154277.16 Hussey (C) - Annexure A to conditions (936 KB, pdf)
154277.16 Hussey - Plans (206 KB, pdf)
154277.16 Hussey - Plans1 (206 KB, pdf)
154277.16 Hussey - Plans2 (271 KB, pdf)
154277.16 Hussey - Plans3 (283 KB, pdf)
154277.16 Hussey - Plans4 (1.06 MB, pdf)
154277.16 Hussey - Plans5 (544 KB, pdf)
154277.16 Hussey - Plans6 (377 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- MTE Developments Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1609
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1609
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the council's decision to refuse the development proposal was unreasonable or unlawful. The court had to assess whether the council had exercised its powers correctly and if it had provided adequate reasons for its decision. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the statutory criteria for refusal were met and if the decision was based on relevant and sufficient evidence.
The court found that the council had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, and the reasons provided were insufficient to justify the refusal. The court held that the decision was unreasonable because it did not properly consider the relevant statutory criteria and the evidence presented. The council had failed to demonstrate that the decision was based on the appropriate considerations. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the council's decision.
The court ordered that the council's decision to refuse the development proposal be set aside and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The council was directed to reconsider the proposal on the basis of the correct legal principles and with proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria and evidence.
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.