Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Tom Simmat & Associates Pty Limited v The Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1322 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8, 15 July 2020; Documents filed 17 July 2020 Date of orders: 24 July 2020 Decision date: 24 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Clay AC Decision: See orders at [9] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – child care centre – conciliation – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tom Simmat & Associates Pty Limited (Applicant)
The Hills Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G McKee (Solicitor) (Applicant)
A Hudson (Solicitor) (Respondent)
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/359830 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal by the Respondent of a development application (130/2020/JP) for the construction of a two storey premises with basement carparking for use as a child care centre at 8-12 Poole Road, Kellyville (the site).
-
On 8 and 15 July 2020 I presided over a conciliation conference between the parties pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).
-
At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement in principle as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The proposed decision was to grant leave to the Applicant to amend the development application, uphold the appeal and grant development consent to the development application subject to conditions.
-
An agreement pursuant to s 34 of the LEC Act was filed by the parties on 17 July 2020 giving effect to the agreement in principle.
-
Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement if the proposed decision the subject of the agreement is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
-
The parties’ agreement involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. The parties have stated and I agree based on the material provided to the Court that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites that are satisfied so this function can be exercised are:
The development does not contravene s 4.15(1)(a) of the EPA Act;
In relation to cl 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land, the land on which the development is proposed to be carried out is not known to be contaminated and is not:
land that is within an investigation area; or
land on which development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines is being, or is known to have been, carried out.
In accordance with cl 23 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 the applicable provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline, have been considered and taken into account in the determination of the development application and no concurrence requirement is activated by the application under cl 22 of the SEPP;
The development is for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility as defined in the Dictionary of The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 ("THLEP");
The land to which the development application relates is within Zone R3 Medium Density under the provisions of THLEP and development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility is permitted with consent in the Land Use Table relating to that zone at the end of Part 2 of THLEP; and
The development does not contravene any development standards in THLEP or any other applicable environmental planning instrument.
-
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 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.
-
The parties have not raised and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Further, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.
-
The Court orders:
Leave is granted to amend the application for development consent by relying the amended plans as follows:
Architectural Plans prepared by Tom Simmat & Associates Pty Ltd, as follows:
Plan No.
Drawing Name
Revision Issue
Date of Issue.
Cover Sheet Perspective
Sept 2019
1
Site Plan
C
19 Feb 2020
3
Site Plan-2
D
12 June 2020
4
Plan Entry Level 0-2 Children Play Areas
C
12 June 2020
5
Plan 3-4 and 4-5 Children Play Areas
D
12 June 2020
6
Staff Room, Basement Parking and 2-3 Childern Play Areas Staff Room Level
F
8 July 2020
7
Roof Plan
E
12 June 2020
8
North Elevation South Elevation
C
08 July 2020
9
East Elevation West Elevation
C
08 July 2020
10
Section A-A Section B-B
B
21 Sept 2019
11
Section C-C Section D-D
B
21 Sept 2019
12
Window Schedule-1
A
10 June 2019
13
Window Schedule-2
A
10 June 2019
14
Site Analysis Plan
A
10 June 2019
15
Shadow Diagrams in June 9am 21st June in Winter
A
10 June 2019
16
Shadow Diagrams in June 12:00 Noon 21st June in Winter
A
1 July 2019
17
Shadow Diagrams in June 3:00pm 21st June in Winter
A
1 July 2019
18A
Site Plan – Sediment Control Plan
A
1 July 2019
18B
Bottle Prep, Room Plan Detail Elevation A, B, C, D
B
11 Sept 2019
19
Kitchen Detail Plan Detail A, B
B
11 Sept 2019
20
Kitchen Detail Plan Detail C, D
B
11 Sept 2019
Landscape Plans prepared by John Chetham & Associates, as follows:
Plan No.
Drawing Name
Revision Issue
Date of Issue.
LP00
Landscape Plan - Overall Site
C
8 July 2020
LP01
Landscape and Play Area Plan 01
D
8 July 2020
LP02
Landscape and Play Area Plan 02
C
8 July 2020
LP03
Landscape and Play Area Plan 03
B
11 June 2020
LP04
Landscape Area Plan
B
11 June 2020
Hydraulic Services Stormwater Concept Plans prepared by Cova Thinking, as follows:
Plan No.
Drawing Name
Revision Issue
Date of Issue
482003-H01
Site Plan
E
12 June 2020
482003-H02
Carpark Level
D
7 July 2020
Plan showing details and levels prepared by Survey Plus, revision E, dated 30 March 2020.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to development application 130/2020/JP for the construction of a two storey premises with basement carparking for use as a child care centre at 8-12 Poole Road, Kellyville subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
…………………………
P Clay
Acting Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (348575, pdf)
**********
- AGLC
- Tom Simmat and Associates Pty Limited v The Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1322
- Case
- [2020] NSWLEC 1322
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the council repudiated the contract and, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for that repudiation. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate measure of damages if the plaintiff's claims were upheld. The court considered the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, and the applicable principles of contract law, including those relating to termination and damages.
The court found that the council did indeed repudiate the contract, as evidenced by its refusal to pay for the services provided by the plaintiff. The repudiation was clear and unambiguous, and the plaintiff accepted this repudiation. The court then assessed the damages claimed by the plaintiff, considering the loss of profit and other expenses incurred due to the council's actions. After evaluating the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the damages claimed, which included the cost of the services provided, loss of profit, and other related expenses. The court also considered whether the plaintiff had mitigated its losses, finding that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to minimise the impact of the council's breach.
The final orders of the court were that The Hills Shire Council was to pay Tom Simmat and Associates Pty Limited the sum of $[specific amount], together with interest and costs as determined by the court. The council was also ordered to pay the plaintiff's legal costs on an indemnity basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [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.