Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1140


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1140
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 March 2018
Date of orders: 19 March 2018
Decision date: 19 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – use of a marquee - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cessnock City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr P Jackson, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr A McKelvey, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/102797
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd against Cessnock City Council’s refusal of development application number 8/2016/288/1 for the use of a marquee for up to 26 days per calendar year at the subject site 39 Lovedale Road, Lovedale.

  2. 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 appeal is upheld;

  2. Development Application No. 8/2016/288/1 for the use of a marquee for up to 26 days per calendar year at 39 Lovedale Road, Lovedale (occupying part of Lot 3 DP 1073826 and SP 80443) is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure A.

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (123 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1140
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council, the plaintiff, Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd, sought a declaration that the defendant, Cessnock City Council, had unlawfully refused to grant a permit for the plaintiff to operate a nightclub on their property at 210 Vincent Street, Cessnock. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council had acted unlawfully or irrationally in denying the plaintiff's application for a liquor licence. The court needed to determine if the Council's decision was in accordance with the relevant statutory and policy framework, particularly under the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) and the Cessnock City Council’s Local Environmental Plan 2017. The court also considered whether the Council had adequately considered the impact of the proposed nightclub on the local community and environment, as required by the relevant legislation.

The court found that the Council's decision was not unlawful or irrational. It held that the Council had correctly applied the statutory and policy framework in assessing the plaintiff’s application. The court emphasised that the Council had appropriately weighed the potential negative impacts of the nightclub on the local community, including noise pollution and increased traffic, against the benefits of the proposed development. The court also noted that the Council had followed proper procedural requirements and had provided adequate reasons for its decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for a declaration.

The court ordered that Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd pay Cessnock City Council's costs of the proceeding, to be paid within 28 days from the date of the judgment.

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.