|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | Riverstone Parade Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2016] NSWLEC 1553 |
Hearing Date(s): | Conciliation conference on 2, 29 September, 24 October, 9, 15 November 2016 |
Date of Orders: | 22 November 2016 |
Decision Date: | 22 November 2016 |
Jurisdiction: | Class 1 |
Before: | Brown C |
Decision: | See (5) below |
Catchwords: | DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: subdivision; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders |
Legislation Cited: | Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 |
Category: | Principal judgment |
Parties: | Riverstone Parade Pty Limited (Applicant) |
Representation: | Ms A Spizzo, Landerer & Company (Applicant) |
File Number(s): | 2016/162020 |
Publication Restriction: | No |
JUDGMENT
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA16-03198 for the creation of a 2 lot subdivision at 81 Riverstone Parade Riverstone.
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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
(a)The appeal in respect of the property known as Lot 211, DP 830505 Riverstone Parade, Riverstone, is upheld.
(b)Development application No. DA16/03198 for the subdivision of land into two separate lots is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
(c)Each party pays its own costs of the proceedings.
…………….
Commissioner Brown
162020.16 Brown (C) (147 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Riverstone Parade Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1553
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1553
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to consider included whether the Council's decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and whether the decision was unreasonable. The appellant argued that the Council's decision was not based on the relevant statutory provisions and was unreasonable. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Council's decision was valid and in accordance with the statutory provisions.
The court found that the Council's decision was not made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the Council had failed to consider all relevant matters and had placed undue weight on irrelevant considerations. The court further found that the Council's decision was unreasonable as it had not taken into account the potential environmental impact of the proposed car wash. The court held that the Council's decision was invalid and quashed it. The court ordered that the Council's decision be set aside and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.
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.