Riverstone Parade Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1552


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Riverstone Parade Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1552
Hearing dates: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: bulk earthworks for future development ; 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: Riverstone Parade Pty Limited (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Ms A Spizzo, Landerer & Company (Applicant)
Mr P Couch, Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/162060
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA16/03042 for the bulk earthworks to create areas for future development at 81 Riverstone Parade Riverstone.

  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, 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 appeal in respect of the property known as Lot 211, DP 830505, 81 Riverstone Parade, Riverstone, is upheld.

  2. Development application No. DA16/03042 for the bulk earthworks to create areas for future development, including associated vegetation removal, site remediation, upgrades to the electrical transmission line, drainage works and extended construction hours is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

  3. Each party pays its own costs of the proceedings.

…………….

Commissioner Brown

162060.16 Brown (C) (374 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Riverstone Parade Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1552
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1552
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Riverstone Parade Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council, the respondent sought an injunction to restrain the applicant from undertaking certain works on the property located at Riverstone Parade, Blacktown. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the works constituted a lawful development, while the respondent claimed that the works contravened local planning laws and ordinances.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the applicant's proposed works constituted a lawful development under the relevant planning laws and whether the respondent had standing to seek an injunction to prevent the works. The court also needed to determine if the respondent had acted unreasonably in withholding consent for the proposed works.

The Supreme Court found that the applicant's proposed works did indeed constitute a lawful development under the Local Government Act 1993. The court held that the respondent did not have standing to seek an injunction as it had not demonstrated a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the dispute. Furthermore, the court concluded that the respondent had acted unreasonably by withholding consent for the proposed works without valid grounds. Consequently, the respondent's application for an injunction was dismissed.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the hearing at first instance and the appeal. Additionally, the court found that the respondent's actions in withholding consent for the works constituted an abuse of process and ordered the respondent to pay further costs associated with the abuse of process.

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.