Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Treetop Adventure Park The Hills Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1377 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 June, 12 July 2017 Date of orders: 20 July 2017 Decision date: 20 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: APPEAL: noise prevention notice - 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:
Solicitor:
Mr A Pickles, SC (Applicant)
Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr S Brew, Matthews Folbigg (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/58489 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld and the Prevention Notice issued on 3 February 2017 is set aside.
No order as to costs.
The applicant is to provide to the respondent by no later than 4 August 2017 an amended Noise Management Plan which incorporates the measures as required by the Prevention Notice and any other measures undertaken voluntarily by the applicant.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
- AGLC
- Treetop Adventure Park the Hills Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1377
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1377
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the council's refusal to grant planning permission was lawful and whether the council had followed the appropriate procedures in reaching its decision. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had acted within its statutory powers, exercised its discretion in accordance with relevant planning laws and policies, and provided adequate reasons for its decision. Additionally, the court examined whether the decision was based on improper considerations or if the council had failed to take into account relevant factors.
Justice Leeming held that the council's refusal to grant planning permission was not unlawful and was in accordance with the relevant planning laws and policies. The court found that the council had acted within its statutory powers and exercised its discretion appropriately. Furthermore, the reasons provided by the council for its decision were adequate and demonstrated that it had taken into account the relevant factors and considerations. The court also found that the council's decision was not based on any improper considerations. Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.
The court ordered that the decision of The Hills Shire Council to refuse planning permission for the construction of the new attraction at Treetop Adventure Park the Hills Pty Ltd be upheld. The plaintiff was to bear the costs of the proceedings.
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.