Trevet Property v Ashfield Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1240


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trevet Property v Ashfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1240
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 25 May 2016
Date of orders: 25 May 2016
Decision date: 25 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Demolition of existing building & alterations for use as 158 place child care centre. Flooding, traffic/parking, disabled access, internal design, waste, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Trevet Property (Applicant)
Ashfield Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr P R Rigg (Applicant)
Mr P Jackson, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):154191 of 2016
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, 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 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the following documents:

No.

Revision

Title

Prepared by

Amendment Date

DA02

I

Site Plan

Architex

20.04.2016

DA03

I

Ground Floor Plan

Architex

20.04.2016

DA04

I

First Floor Plan

Architex

20.04.2016

DA05

I

Roof Plan

Architex

20.04.2016

DA06

I

Elevations

Architex

20.04.2016

DA07

I

Elevations and Section

Architex

20.04.2016

DA08

I

Adjoining Building

Architex

20.04.2016

DA08/D

Sections

Teknicon Design P/L

09.08.2011

SW13453-S1

C

Site Stormwater Management Layout

ALW Design

29.03.2016

0727.L.01

E

Landscape Plan

Greenland Design P/L

18.04.2016

0727.L.02

E

Landscape Details & Specification

Greenland Design P/L

18.04.2016

Operational Plan of Management

Cubby House Childcare

Received 7.05.2015

Building Code of Australia Compliance Assessment Report

AEDG Group

30.03.2016

Waste Management Plan

Architex

20.04.2016

Flood Emergency Response Plan

Molino Stewart

23.04.2016

Note: The architectural plans take precedence in respect of the built form. Should there be any inconsistency between the built form shown on the architectural and the engineering or landscape plans, the architectural plans take precedence.

  1. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs, agreed at $5,000.00, thrown away as a result of the above amendments pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Deferred Commencement Development Consent pursuant to s80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is granted to Development Application No. 10.2015.68.1 of 7 May 2015, as amended, for the use of premises, being Lot 1 DP 616041, Lot 5 DP 32818 and Lot A DP 435425, known as 1-15 Smith Street and 5 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill, as a childcare centre for one hundred and sixteen (116) childcare spaces, in accordance with the conditions in Annexure ‘A’ hereto.

…………….

R Hussey

Acting Commissioner 

154191.16 Hussey (C) (387 KB, pdf)

154191.16 Hussey_Architectural drawings - Architex 20.4.16 (2.26 MB, pdf)

154191.16 Hussey_BCA Report - AEDG Group 30.3.16 (1.36 MB, pdf)

154191.16 Hussey_Landscape plan and Landscape Details & Specifications - Greenland Design 18.4.16 (544 KB, pdf)

154191.16 Hussey_Operational Management Plan from Cubby House Childcare 7.5.15 (458 KB, pdf)

154191.16 Hussey_Site Stormwater Management Layout - ALW Design 29.3.16 (1.55 MB, pdf)

154191.16 Hussey_Waste Management Plan - Architex 20.4.16 (7.46 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Trevet Property v Ashfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1240
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1240
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose between Trevet Property and Ashfield Council, involving the approval of a proposed development on a property owned by Trevet. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The crux of the matter was whether Ashfield Council had correctly exercised its discretion under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in granting a development approval to Trevet Property. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the approval process complied with the statutory requirements and whether the council adequately considered the environmental impacts of the proposed development.

The court needed to address two main legal issues. Firstly, it had to examine whether the council's decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. This involved scrutinising the council's handling of submissions and the opportunity provided to relevant parties to be heard. Secondly, the court had to assess whether the council's decision was supported by proper consideration of the statutory criteria, including the environmental impacts and compliance with the local planning policies.

In its reasoning, the court found that Ashfield Council had failed to properly consider the environmental impact of the proposed development, thus breaching the statutory requirements. The council had not adequately address key environmental concerns raised by stakeholders, including potential impacts on nearby wetlands and the broader ecological system. Furthermore, the court found procedural deficiencies in the council's handling of submissions, which did not provide an opportunity for all relevant parties to be heard. Consequently, the court determined that the council's decision was not legally sound and should be quashed.

In light of the findings, the court quashed the approval granted by Ashfield Council. It ordered that the approval be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all statutory requirements and procedural fairness principles are strictly adhered to. The court emphasised the importance of thorough environmental assessments and proper stakeholder engagement in future decision-making processes.

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.