Rydal Management Pty Ltd v Greater Lithgow City Council; International Study Programs Pty Ltd v Greater Lithgow City Council; Rydal & Sodwalls Heritage Association Inc v Greater Lithgow City Council
[1999] NSWLEC 175
•4 February 1999
Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION:
Rydal Management Pty Ltd v Greater Lithgow City Council; International Study Programs Pty Ltd & Ors v Greater Lithgow City Council & Anor; Rydal & Sodwalls Heritage Association Inc v Greater Lithgow City Council & Anor [1999] NSWLEC 175
PARTIES
Matter 10961 of 1998
APPLICANT
Rydal Management Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
Greater Lithgow City CouncilMatter 10465 of 1988
Matter 40183 of 1998
APPLICANT
International Study Programs Pty Ltd & Ors
FIRST RESPONDENT
Greater Lithgow City Council
SECOND RESPONDENT
Rydal Management Pty Ltd
APPLICANT
Rydal & Sodwalls Heritage Association Incorporated
FIRST RESPONDENT
Greater Lithgow City Council
SECOND RESPONDENT
Rydal Management Pty Ltd
NUMBER:
10961, 10465 and 40183 of 1998
CORAM:
Sheahan J
KEY ISSUES:
:- Notice of Motion seeking vacation of hearing dates
LEGISLATION CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:
02/04/1999
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:
02/04/1999
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
RYDAL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
Mr W R Davison (Barrister)
GREATER LITHGOW CITY COUNCIL
Mr D Miller (Barrister)
INTERNATIONAL STUDY PROGRAMS PTY LTD & ORS and RYDAL & SODWALLS HERITAGE ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
Mr P Larkin (Barrister)
JUDGMENT:
IN THE LAND AND Matter No: 10961, 10465 and
ENVIRONMENT COURT 40183 of 1998
OF NEW SOUTH WALES Coram: Sheahan J
4 February 1999
Matter 10961 of 1998
Applicant
v
GREATER LITHGOW CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
Matter 10465 of 1998
Applicants
v
GREATER LITHGOW CITY COUNCIL
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Matter 40183 of 1998
Applicant
v
GREATER LITHGOW CITY COUNCIL
First Respondent
Second Respondent
EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT ON NOTICE OF MOTION
1. There are now three matters before the Court in respect of the development application made by Rydal Management Pty Limited. Two of those matters were before the Court on 18 December 1998 and after some debate were adjourned part heard to resume before me on 22 February for a period of four specific days. One of those proceedings was the hearing of a preliminary point of law in class 1 matter 10465/98 and related questions raised in similar terms in the class 4 matter 40183/98. For want of a better term the applicants in those two proceedings are objectors to the application made by Rydal Management Pty Limited to Greater Lithgow City Council and the consent granted by that council to that company.
2. Now before the Court is matter 10961/98 in which Rydal Management appeals against some of the conditions attached by the council to that consent. It would appear from the court papers that that particular class 1 matter is currently listed for a telephone callover on 1 March 1999.
3. Mr Davison SC on behalf of Rydal Management Pty Limited seeks the vacation of the February 22 to 25 hearing dates of the other two proceedings. His motion is supported by counsel for the Lithgow City Council, Mr Miller, and opposed on the basis of utility by Mr Larkin of counsel for the objectors who are the applicants in those two original matters.
4. It is apparent from the argument there would be some utility in some of the issues that we discussed on 18 December 1998 being resolved as soon as convenient to all the parties but, given the information in Mr England's affidavit even though Mr Larkin indicates that the material referred to in that affidavit may prove to be of no relevance to the fundamental issue he raises on behalf of his clients, I for my part can see little point in the hearing proceeding on 22 February until the actual position between the council and Rydal Management Pty Limited clarifies somewhat, as it will in the ordinary course of events in the Court's dealing with matter 10961/98.
5. Accordingly, I grant the motion of the second respondent in matters 10465 and 40183 that the hearing dates be vacated and I adjourn both those matters for callover on 1 March 1999 with matter 10961/98. I grant leave to the parties to approach the registrar to change the arrangements for that callover if it be more effectively done in person.
6. MILLER : I think it needs to be, your Honour. Apparently things were superseded last week and there isn't a telephone callover any more, so the order would need to be for it to go back to the registrar for callover.
7. I will list all three. I therefore call up matter 10961 and list all three for callover before the registrar on 1 March 1999 so that the parties can then give some further consideration in consultation with the Court as to how all three matters should be disposed of.
8. I reserve all questions of cost.
0
0
0