Spacelab Studio Pty Ltd v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1547

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Spacelab Studio Pty Ltd v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2016] NSWLEC 1547
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 29 August & 18 November 2016
Date of orders: 18 November 2016
Decision date: 18 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon 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: Spacelab Studio Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (Respondent)
Representation: Ms J Green, Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Applicant)
Mr A Bradbury, Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/158044
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure B.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application (DA368-2015) for the demolition of the existing motel and erection and operation of a service station at 2 High Street, Queanbeyan (contained in Lot 68 in DP615408), and associated works is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” and the plans set out in Annexure “B”.

…………….

Commissioner Dixon

158044.16 Dixon (C) Annexure A (676 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon (C) Annexure B (73.4 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - 15-1126 Landscape DA L501_D (2.02 MB, PDF)

158044.16 Dixon - 115168-Queanbeyan-SIG01_C (840 KB, PDF)

158044.16 Dixon - 115168-Queanbeyan-SIG02_D (002) with timber boundary fence RED AMENDED (496 KB, PDF)

158044.16 Dixon - 152989-H-DA-01 (Rev 2) (353 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - A010 Demolition Plan_A (482 KB, PDF)

158044.16 Dixon - A010 Demolition Plan_A (482 KB, PDF)

158044.16 Dixon - A101 Proposed Site Plan_S - 15.9.16 (1) (1.00 MB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - A201 Elevation_H (683 KB, PDF)

158044.16 Dixon - A301 Section_K (339 KB, PDF)

158044.16 Dixon - A501 Colour Sample Schedule_A RED AMENDED (698 KB, PDF)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C002 Drawing List (D) (1) (220 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C003 General Notes (D) (392 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C101 Landscape Management & Protection Plan (D) (399 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C102 Pollution Control Plan (D) (368 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C104 Temporary Traffic Management Plan 1 (D) (369 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C103 Site Establishment Notes & Details (D) (1.09 MB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C107 Demolition Plan (F) (352 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C201 External Services Plan (E) (541 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C301 General Arrangement Plan (F) (1) (570 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C302 Pavement Plan (H) (507 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C303 Civil Details Plan 1 (E) (453 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C305 Grading & Setout Plan (E) (774 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C306 Kerb Return Profiles 1 (E) (257 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - C 150808-C307 Kerb Return Profiles 2 (E) (259 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - Civil Plans 150808-C303 Section (F) (1) (261 KB, pdf)

158044.16 Dixon - S4B15005400 0 8 ESK01 External lighting layout P5 (826 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Spacelab Studio Pty Ltd v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2016] NSWLEC 1547
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1547
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Spacelab Studio Pty Ltd v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council, the plaintiff, Spacelab Studio Pty Ltd, sought judicial review of a decision by the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (the Council) to deny an application for a development approval. The plaintiff sought to develop a property into a studio and cafe, but the Council refused the application on the basis that it was inconsistent with the existing planning scheme. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the Council's decision was legally sound, focusing on whether the decision-maker properly exercised their discretion under the relevant planning legislation. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the Council had correctly interpreted the planning scheme, whether the decision was based on relevant considerations, and whether the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. The plaintiff also argued that the Council had failed to properly consider its own policies and guidelines in reaching its decision.

In its judgment, the court found that the Council had correctly interpreted the planning scheme and had exercised its discretion in a manner consistent with the law. The court held that the decision was based on relevant considerations and was not unreasonable. The court found that the Council had properly taken into account the character of the area and the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties. The court also held that the Council had not failed to consider its own policies and guidelines, as the plaintiff had argued. The court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the Council's decision.

The court's final orders included the dismissal of the plaintiff's application for judicial review, with the plaintiff to bear the costs of the proceedings. The court made no orders as to costs below the intermediate level. The decision serves as a reminder to applicants that planning decisions are subject to judicial review, but that such review is limited to ensuring that the decision-maker has exercised their discretion in a legally sound manner.

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.