Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Silver Stallion Pty Limited v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1186 Hearing dates: Conciliation on 3 and 13 March, and 7 April 2017 Date of orders: 11 April 2017 Decision date: 11 April 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: Silver Stallion Pty Limited (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)Representation: Peter Tomasetti SC with Scott Nash (Applicants).
Martin Ball, Central Coast Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/254995 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.
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1.1 of annexure “A”;
Consent is granted to development application 47050/2015, to demolish an existing restaurant and erect a residential flat building comprising 18 units, at Lot 4 DP 327014, with a street address of 49 Masons Parade, Point Frederick, NSW subject to the conditions contained in the annexure marked “A” to this agreement.
…………….
Sue Morris
Commissioner of the Court
254995.16 Annexure A (C) (132 KB, pdf)
254995.16 Plans (17.2 MB, pdf)
Amendments
12 April 2017 - Amendment made to Representation
- AGLC
- Silver Stallion Pty Limited v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1186
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1186
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the council's approval was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentations and whether the council had failed to consider the environmental impacts as required by planning legislation. The developer argued that the council had been misled about the extent of the proposed development and the environmental effects, and that these misrepresentations led to an invalid approval. Additionally, the developer contended that the council had not properly considered the environmental impact statement, which was crucial for the assessment of the application.
The court found that there was no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations made to the council. It concluded that while there were inaccuracies in the information provided by the developer, these were not intentional or fraudulent but rather the result of misunderstandings and errors. Regarding the environmental considerations, the court determined that the council had adequately considered the environmental impact statement and had complied with the necessary statutory requirements. The court found that the council's approval process was valid and that the developer's challenges to the approval were unfounded.
The court dismissed the developer's claims and ruled in favour of the council, affirming the validity of the planning approval. The court found that the council had acted within its statutory powers and had not been misled by the developer. The decision underscored the importance of accurate information in the planning approval process and confirmed that the council's approval was valid and should stand.
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.