Swankin Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1587


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Swankin Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1587
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 November 2018
Date of orders: 12 November 2018
Decision date: 12 November 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
Decision:

See [9] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders.
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Swankin Pty Ltd (Applicant)
The Hills Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
F Bergland (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Webster Solicitors (Applicant)
M Hanna, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/146736
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against a Development Control Order (10) (the order) issued by The Hills Shire Council under Div 9.3 and Item 10 of Pt 1 of Sch 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act 1979) for the clearing of vegetation and tree removal, and required subsequent regeneration. The order relates to unauthorised works at Lot 42 DP 1067382, also known as 62 Spur Place, Glenorie, NSW (the site).

  2. This Class 1 appeal is made under s 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979). The Court is required to make a determination pursuant to s 8.18(4) of the EP&A Act 1979.

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act 1979) between the parties, which was held on 9 November 2018. I have presided over the conciliation conference. There were no objections raised by third parties.

  4. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision is to uphold the appeal, in addition to modify the order and compliance requirements, pursuant to Pt 10(22)(1) of Pt 1 of Sch 5 of the EP&A Act 1979. Specifically, and with relevance to the reasons given for the order, the order is amended to relate to Item 10 of Pt 1 of Sch 5 of the EP&A Act 1979.

  5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision, if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  6. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising its function under s 8.18(4) of the EPA Act 1979 to modify the (development control) order (10). The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of particular relevance in these proceedings, as consistent with The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012. The parties agreed that the site is zoned RU2 and that clearing occurred within land identified as ‘Biodiversity’ land, according to the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map, under clause 7.4 of the THLEP 2012. Order 10 requires cessation of clearing and activation of natural regeneration in the area shown in red in the site plan shown in Figure 1 of Annexure A.

  7. I am therefore satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979.

  8. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  9. The Court orders:

  1. Leave is granted to amend the Order Number and the action in response (‘To do what’), as shown in Annexure “A”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Order 10, issued on 9 November 2018 to Swankin Pty Ltd and John Bourke (Director) at Lot 42 DP 1067382, also known as 62 Spur Place, Glenorie, is annexed hereto and marked “A”.

  4. No order is made as to costs.

……………………..

S Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (307 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Swankin Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1587
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1587
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Swankin Pty Ltd sought a declaration that the Hills Shire Council was required to grant them approval to carry out certain works on their property, as well as an injunction preventing the Council from interfering with the proposed works. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's refusal to grant the approval was lawful and if the Plaintiff's activities on the property constituted a lawful use of the land. The court had to determine if the Plaintiff's activities were consistent with the approved use of the land, and if not, whether the refusal of approval was justified.

The court considered whether the Plaintiff's proposed activities constituted a lawful use of the land, and if not, whether the Council's refusal to grant approval was lawful. The court examined the relevant planning laws and the approved use of the land, as well as the evidence presented by both parties. It was found that the Plaintiff's proposed activities did not align with the approved use of the land, and the Council's refusal to grant approval was considered justified. The court held that the Plaintiff's activities would result in a significant change in the character of the land, which was not in line with the approved use. The Plaintiff's argument that the Council had previously approved similar activities on the land was also rejected, as the court found that the circumstances were materially different.

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims and refused to grant the declaration and injunction sought. The court found that the Council's refusal to grant approval was lawful, and the Plaintiff's proposed activities did not align with the approved use of the land. The court held that the Plaintiff's activities would result in a significant change in the character of the land, which was not in line with the approved use. The Plaintiff's argument that the Council had previously approved similar activities on the land was also rejected, as the court found that the circumstances were materially different. The court concluded that the Council was not required to grant the approval sought by the Plaintiff, and the injunction was refused. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed in their entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [9] 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.