Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Pacific Rim Accommodation Group Pty Ltd v Mid-Coast Council [2018] NSWLEC 1578 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 25 October 2018 Date of orders: 06 November 2018 Decision date: 06 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon SC Decision: See [8] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment 1979
Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008Category: Principal judgment Parties: Pacific Rim Accommodation Group Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Tattersall Lander Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Mid-Coast Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
G Long, Long Legal Pty Ltd (Applicants)
T Pickup, Local Government Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/105619 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
COMMISSIONER:
-
This Class 1 appeal concerns a revised Development Control Order issued by Mid-Coast Council on 26 April 2018 under Division 9.3 and Item 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).
-
The Order required the First Applicant (as land owner) and the Second Applicant, Tattersall Lander Pty Ltd (as persons causing the work) to cease carrying out the following work on land described as Lot 402 in DP 773088, No 223 The Lakes Way, Forster and known as “Follyfoot Farm” (the land):-
any physical activity involving earthworks, excavation, road construction, bridge construction and tree removal, other than work specifically required by New South Wales EPA Notice No 1563479 dated 6 April 2018;
the receiving, stockpiling or burying of waste or waste classified material;
the winning of earth as fill material from parts of the Land;
any physical activity involved in construction or demolition which is not otherwise approved by Council or deemed Exempt Development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.
-
The appeal against the Order is made pursuant to s 8.18 of the EPA Act.
-
Following 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 would be acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test mandated by s 34(3) of the Court Act.
-
Section 34(3)(a) of the Court Act requires me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also requires 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, the parties have not raised and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Nor am I 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 Court Act are:
The appeal is upheld.
The Development Control Order dated 26 April 2018 issued by the Respondent is revoked upon the surrender of Development Consent No. DA 198/2012 in the form required by clause 97 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.
Prior to the surrender of Development Consent No. DA 198/2012, the Applicants are not to carry out any physical activity involving earthworks, excavation, road construction or tree removal, other than works required to comply with any NSW EPA clean up notice.
……………………….
S Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Court
- AGLC
- Pacific Rim Accommodation Group Pty Ltd v Mid-Coast Council [2018] NSWLEC 1578
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1578
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Mid-Coast Council's refusal to approve the development application was lawful. This involved examining whether the council acted within its statutory powers and whether its decision was based on relevant considerations and evidence. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the refusal was unreasonable, considering the potential impact of the proposed hotel on the surrounding area and its compliance with the relevant planning policies and guidelines.
The court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful. It was determined that the council had acted within its statutory powers and that the decision was based on relevant considerations and evidence. The court held that the refusal was not unreasonable, as the proposed hotel development would have had significant adverse impacts on the surrounding residential area, contrary to the objectives of the local planning policies. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the character and integrity of the residential zone, and that the proposed development did not align with these objectives. The plaintiffs' application was therefore dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [8] 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.