Terry Road Development Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1226


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Terry Road Development Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1226
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 May 2018
Date of orders: 11 May 2018
Decision date: 11 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – construction of three residential flat buildings - conciliation conference -agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Terry Road Development Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
C Campbell, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/153731
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: The development application the subject of this appeal seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of three 4-storey residential flat buildings comprising 311 apartments and a cafe at 49 Terry Road, Rouse Hill (Lot 135/DP 208203).

  2. In this matter, at 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 applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 2.1 of Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application Number SPP-17-00003 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of 3 x 4 storey residential flat buildings comprising 311 apartments and a café, basement car parking with 386 car parking spaces, new public roads, stormwater drainage and landscaping works is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $11,000, payable within 28 days.

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (582 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (8.71 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Terry Road Development Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1226
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1226
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Terry Road Development Pty Ltd versus Blacktown City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute involved the council's refusal to grant a development application for the construction of a residential property. The applicant, Terry Road Development, sought to build a multi-level residential development on a designated land parcel, which was subject to stringent zoning and planning regulations. The council, however, rejected the application on the grounds that it contravened certain planning policies and controls.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was lawful, and if the applicant's rights under the Development Act 1993 had been infringed. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council's refusal was based on valid considerations and whether it adhered to the statutory requirements for decision-making. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness during the assessment process.

In examining these issues, the court considered the relevant planning instruments, the council's decision-making process, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the council's decision was indeed based on valid considerations and that the statutory requirements for decision-making were followed. The applicant had not demonstrated that the council acted unreasonably or unfairly. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision and dismissed the application. The court ordered that the applicant pay the council's costs of the proceeding.

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.