Tenterfield Petroleum Pty Limited v Central Coast Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1553


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tenterfield Petroleum Pty Limited v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWLEC 1553
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 October 2018
Date of orders: 18 October 2018
Decision date: 18 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – completion of canopy and construction of pylon sign - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Tenterfield Petroleum Pty Limited (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
J Hatzopoulos, Rostron Carlyle Lawyers (Applicant)
M Domingo, Central Coast Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/110072
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Tenterfield Petroleum Pty Limited against the deemed refusal by Central Coast Council of development application (DA/1082/2017). The application proposes completion of an existing canopy (including signage) and the construction of a pylon sign, being additions to an existing development at 1625 Yarramalong Road, Yarramalong (Lot 2 DP 870128).

  2. 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”.

  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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely upon the plans described in condition 1.1 of Annexure A to this agreement.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Consent is granted to the application (DA1082/2017) for completion of partially constructed canopy over petrol bowsers and signage, subject to the conditions as set out in Annexure A.

……………………….

J Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (170 KB, pdf)

Plans (926 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Tenterfield Petroleum Pty Limited v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWLEC 1553
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1553
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Tenterfield Petroleum Pty Limited contested the decision of the Central Coast Council to refuse their application to construct an underground fuel storage facility. The dispute centred on the application of planning laws and the environmental impact of the proposed project.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to deny the application was lawful under the relevant planning and environmental legislation. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had correctly exercised its discretion in denying the application and whether there were any procedural or substantive errors in its decision-making process. Additionally, the court examined whether the council adequately considered the statutory objectives and relevant factors outlined in the planning and environmental laws.

The court held that the council had exercised its discretion lawfully and that the decision to deny the application was supported by appropriate reasons. The court found that the council had appropriately considered the statutory objectives and relevant factors, including environmental protection and the potential impact on the local community. The court further determined that there were no procedural errors or significant substantive flaws in the council's decision-making process. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the council's decision.

ORDERS:
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Central Coast Council. The order includes that the appellant, Tenterfield Petroleum Pty Limited, is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

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.