Prestons Service Centre Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1396


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prestons Service Centre Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1396
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 July 2017
Date of orders: 27 July 2017
Decision date: 27 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown 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 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Prestons Service Centre Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms S Puckeridge, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr I Lacy, Liverpool Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/61280
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against Development Application No. DA96/2016 for the construction of a service station and associated convenience store, drive-thru take away premises, seven commercial/retail tenancies across three separate buildings of land located at 2072 -- 2074 Camden Valley Way, Edmonson Park

  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 rely upon the following documents:

  1. ND01 - ND04; ND06 - ND13; ND16 - 18 Revision D, dated 22.05.17

  2. ND14, dated 12.06.15

  3. ND02A - ND04A, Revision D, dated 22.05.17

  4. ND01B - 04B, Revision D, dated 22.05.17

  5. DA4.15 Revision 1 dated May 2017, DA 4.01 Revision 3 dated May 2017

  6. Preliminary Hazard Analysis and Summary contained in Appendix C of 'Multi - level Risk Assessment' prepared for Prestons Service Centre Pty Ltd Edmondson Park - NSW by Myros Design Pty Ltd, dated 10 May

  7. Multi-Level Risk Assessment, prepared by Myros Design Pty Ltd, dated 10 May 2017

  8. Detailed Site Investigation, prepared by eiaustralia, reference E22769 AC_REV0, dated 15 May 2017

  9. Hazardous Materials Survey Report, prepared by eiaustralia, reference E22769 AD_REV0, dated 15 May 2017

  10. Updated Clause 4.6 Variation Request prepared by TPG Town Planning and Urban Design dated May 2017.

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Consent is granted to Development Application No. DA96/2016 for the construction of a service station and associated convenience store, drive-thru take away premises, seven commercial/retail tenancies across three separate buildings of land located at 2072 -- 2074 Camden Valley Way, Edmonson Park and associated works including:

  1. Bulk earthworks and site preparation,

  2. Construction of three underground fuel tanks,,

  3. (iii)    Construction of four double sided multi-hose dispensers that are piped for all products,

  4. (iv)    Construction of three bowsers serving the truck fuel stop,

  5. Construction of an underground tanker fuelling point,

  6. Construction of canopy over the fuel dispensers,

  7. Construction of piers beneath Building D to alleviate flooding,

  8. Construction of new vehicular entry and egress points onto and from Camden Valley Way,

  9. Construction of fifty four car parking spaces including three wheelchair accessible parking spaces,

  10. Construction of an air/water fill point,

  11. Landscaping of the site boundaries and median, and

  12. Signage

subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked "Annexure A".

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

62180.17 Brown (C) (811 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Prestons Service Centre Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1396
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1396
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prestons Service Centre Pty Ltd sued Liverpool City Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to overturn a decision made by the council to refuse their application for a change of use of their property, which had been approved by a prior council. The plaintiff argued that the refusal was unreasonable and unlawful. The case raised questions about the legal standards governing the decisions made by local councils regarding changes of use of property, particularly when those decisions are challenged by the property owner.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to approve the change of use was unreasonable or unlawful. The plaintiff argued that the decision was not based on proper consideration of relevant factors and was instead influenced by irrelevant considerations. The council contended that their decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions and was therefore valid. The court was required to determine the appropriate standard of review to apply to the council's decision and to assess whether the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legal principles.

In its judgment, the court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable or unlawful. The court held that the council had considered all relevant factors in making its decision and that the decision was not influenced by irrelevant considerations. The court also held that the standard of review applicable to the council's decision was the "Wednesbury" standard, which requires a decision-maker to act within the scope of its powers and to consider all relevant factors. The court found that the council had met this standard in making its decision. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld.

The court made no orders as to costs.

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.