Treetop Adventure Park the Hills Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1436


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Treetop Adventure Park The Hills Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1436
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 June, 12 July & 4 August 2017
Date of orders: 14 August 2017
Decision date: 14 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: NOISE CONTROL NOTICE – appeal - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Treetop Adventure Park The Hills Pty Ltd (Applicant)
The Hills Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Pickles SC (Applicant)

Solicitor:
Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms Simone Brew, Matthews Folbigg (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/110945
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 make, 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 Appeal is upheld.

  2. The Noise Control Notice is revoked.

  3. The Applicant agrees to amend the Noise Management Plan to include the following additional clauses:-

  1. TreeTops Adventure Park is to have all staff members trained to actively monitor noise levels when Treetops Adventure Park is in use. The duties of all staff members would be to:

  1. Advise all climbers and spectators associated with the TreeTops Adventure Park within the license area to refrain from making noise.

  1. Noise complaint protocol to be in place to include:

  1. The Treetops manager is to record all verbal and telephone complaints in writing; together with details of the circumstance leading to the complaint and all subsequent actions;

  2. The Treetops manager will take all reasonable steps to investigate the complaints in order to determine whether a criterion exceedance has occurred or whether noise have occurred unnecessarily;

  3. If excessive or unnecessary noise have been caused, corrective action will be planned and implemented by the project manager;

  4. Nearest residents to be provided with the contact details for the management staff of Treetops Adventure Park.

  1. The applicant agrees to provide to the respondent by no later than 25 August 2017 an amended Noise Management Plan which incorporates the additional clauses as set out in paragraph (3) above.

  2. No order as to costs.

……………………….

Commissioner Gray

Details
AGLC
Treetop Adventure Park the Hills Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1436
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1436
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Treetop Adventure Park the Hills Pty Ltd, an adventure park operator, and The Hills Shire Council, a local government authority. The nature of the dispute was whether the Council had lawfully exercised its power to impose conditions on a development approval granted to the Adventure Park. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The Adventure Park sought a review of the Council's decision to impose conditions on the development approval, arguing that the conditions were unreasonable and not in accordance with relevant planning and environmental laws.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Council had the authority to impose the conditions, whether the conditions were reasonable and lawful, and whether the Adventure Park had suffered or was likely to suffer loss or damage as a result of the Council's decision. The Adventure Park also argued that the Council had failed to consider relevant environmental and planning policies in making its decision. The court was required to determine whether the Council had acted lawfully and whether the Adventure Park had suffered or was likely to suffer loss or damage as a result of the Council's decision.

The court found that the Council had the authority to impose the conditions and that the conditions were reasonable and lawful. The court held that the Adventure Park had not demonstrated that it had suffered or was likely to suffer loss or damage as a result of the Council's decision. The court also found that the Council had considered relevant environmental and planning policies in making its decision. The Adventure Park's application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Council's decision to impose conditions on the development approval was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the Adventure Park's application for judicial review be dismissed with costs to be paid by the Adventure Park to the Council. The court also ordered that the Adventure Park pay the Council's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.

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.