Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Retail Fuel Developments Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1065 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 December 2016, 16 January & 2 February 2017 Date of orders: 13 February 2017 Decision date: 13 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris 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: Retail Fuel Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ballina Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr C Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms C Huegill, Property Law Specialist(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/268732 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 Appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on an amended application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Drawing No. TP.03 Revision L dated 1 February 2017 by TRG;
Drawing No. TP.04 Revision A dated 12 January 2016 by TRG;
Drawing No. TP.05 Revision C dated 17 June 2016 by TRG;
Drawing No. TP.06 Revision B dated 17 June 2016 by TRG;
Drawing No. 1529-02 Issue C dated February 2017 by Jackie Amos;
Drawing No.C01.(P2) dated 16 December 2015 by de Groot Benson;
Drawing No.C04 dated 4 May 2016 by de Groot Benson;
Drawing No.C05.(DA1) dated 14 December 2016 by de Groot Benson
The application for approval of DA 2016/25 (being for demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a service station an ancillary kiosk at 323 River Street, Ballina) is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Morris
268732.16 Morris (C) (283 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Retail Fuel Developments Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1065
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1065
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues were whether the Council's decision was lawful, and whether RFD's application complied with the statutory and regulatory requirements. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Council's refusal was based on proper consideration of the planning scheme and if the scheme's provisions were correctly applied. Another issue was whether the Council's decision was unreasonable, given the evidence and submissions presented.
The Court held that the Council's decision was not unreasonable and was in accordance with the law. The Council had correctly applied the planning scheme and environmental guidelines, and there was ample evidence to support the refusal. The Court found that RFD had not demonstrated that the site was suitable for a petrol station, given the potential environmental impact and the zoning of the land. The Court also noted that RFD had not addressed all the relevant considerations required by the planning scheme.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Council's decision. The appeal was without merit, and the costs of the appeal were awarded to the Council. The Court found that RFD's application did not comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements, and the Council's decision was based on proper consideration of the planning scheme and environmental guidelines.
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.