Upper Hunter Developments (Scone) Pty Ltd v Upper Hunter Shire Council

Case [2021] NSWLEC 1250


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Upper Hunter Developments (Scone) Pty Ltd v Upper Hunter Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 1250
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 March 2021
Date of orders: 14 May 2021
Decision date: 14 May 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
Decision:

See judgment at [18]

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – service station – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.16, 8.7

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

State Environmental Planning Policy No 33 — Hazardous and Offensive Development

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land, cl 7

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 — Advertising and Signage, cl 8

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, cl 101

Upper Hunter Local Environmental Plan 2013, cl 2.3

Texts Cited:

Upper Hunter Development Control Plan 2015, Part 12a

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Upper Hunter Developments (Scone) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Upper Hunter Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Whealy (Solicitor) (Applicant)
A Pickup (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Local Government Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/363025
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application (DA) 19/2020 by Upper Hunter Shire Council (hereafter the Council) which seeks construction of a service station with a convenience store, overhead fuel canopy, underground fuel tanks, with associated infrastructure, landscaping and signage on Lot 1 DP 1145990, also known as 18 Kelly Street, Scone (hereafter the site).

  2. The amended Class 1 appeal is made under s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

  3. The Court agreed to the parties’ request for a conciliation conference pursuant to s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), which was held on 24 March 2021, without an onsite view and remotely by Microsoft Teams.

  4. Based on the amended plans, together with the DA’s supporting documents and agreed conditions of consent, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The parties agree that the contentions raised by Council have been considered and resolved. The decision of the parties is to uphold the appeal and grant consent to DA 19/2020 with conditions.

  5. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision, if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising its function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act and being satisfied, pursuant to be satisfied of the requirements in s 4.15(1) to grant consent to DA 19/2020, with conditions, as described in Annexure A.

  6. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of particular relevance in these proceedings for the Court’s consideration as consistency with the: State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 — Remediation of Land (SEPP 55); State Environmental Planning Policy No 33 — Hazardous and Offensive Development (SEPP 33); State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 — Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64); State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP Infrastructure); Upper Hunter Local Environmental Plan 2013 (UHLEP); as well as the Upper Hunter Development Control Plan 2015 (UHDCP).

  7. The parties agree that the Court could be satisfied the proposed development complies with the provisions of SEPP 55. The Council has assessed that the site is historically used as agricultural lands, and is considered suitable for the proposed development, based on the detailed site investigation report, and any unexpected finds provided for in the conditions of consent. Thereby the Court is satisfied the relevant requirements of cl 7 of the SEPP 55 are achieved.

  8. The proposed development, as a service station, is required to comply with the provisions of the SEPP 33. The amended DA is supported by a Risk Screening and Preliminary Hazard Report, which is described in the conditions of consent. The parties agree that the relevant requirements of SEPP 33, are addressed by the documents that support the application.

  9. The proposed development is required to comply with the relevant provisions of the SEPP Infrastructure because it has frontage to a classified road, pursuant to cl 101. Transport for NSW have provided conditions in concurrence, which are included in the conditions of consent. The parties agree that the proposed development is not sensitive to noise and the function of the classified road will not be adversely affected. The proposed development thereby satisfies the relevant requirements of SEPP Infrastructure.

  10. Pursuant to cl 8 of the SEPP 64, the signage associated with the proposed development must be considered. The parties and the Court agree that the proposed signage is consistent with the requirements of SEPP 64.

  11. The proposed development on the site is located within the B2 Local Centre Residential zone, as identified in cl 2.3 of the UHLEP. The proposed development is permissible with consent and satisfies the objectives of this zone. The parties and the Court agree that the relevant provisions of the UHLEP are addressed to their satisfaction.

  12. The parties agree that the proposed development requires an internal road, subject to the provisions of Part12a of the UHDCP. The parties explain that the amended plans show traffic and pedestrian safety is assured by the proposed development. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the relevant requirements of the UHDCP are achieved.

  13. The parties agree that the DA was publicly notified in accordance with the UHDCP. During the notification period for this DA under appeal, three submissions in objection were received by Council.

  14. The parties advise the Court that the amended plans that support the amended DA have been considered in the context of the site and surrounding area. Based on the amended plans and supporting documents to the DA, the contentions raised by Council, issues by residents, and all jurisdictional requirements are resolved.

  15. The parties advise the Court that they have undertaken the appropriate merit assessment of the amended DA, and which they are satisfied resolves the contentions, as raised.

  16. I am satisfied that there are no jurisdictional impediments to this agreement and that DA 19/2020 should be granted, as it satisfies the requirements of s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.

  17. 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.

  18. The Court orders that:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans and documents:

Site Plan

D19-1193

100

I

Modus

September 2019

Signage Plan

D19-1193

102

I

Modus

September 2019

Floor Plan

D19-1193

200

I

Modus

September 2019

Canopy and Convenience Store Roof Plan

D19-1193

201

I

Modus

September 2019

Reflected Ceiling Plan

D19-1193

220

I

Modus

September 2019

Elevation Plan

D19-1193

300

I

Modus

September 2019

Section Plan

D19-1193

400

I

Modus

September 2019

Swept Path Assessment 20m AV

SK01

-

SLR

8.4.2021

Swept Path Assessment 8.8 MRV

SK02

-

SLR

6.4.2021

Swept Path Assessment Front-lift RCU

SK03

-

SLR

8.4.2021

Proposed Driveway Crossover Details

SK04

-

SLR

8.4.21

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application for development consent under section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to development application No. DA19/2020 for construction of a service station with convenience store, overhead fuel canopy, underground fuel tanks and infrastructure, loading bay, garbage yard, plant area, landscaping and signage at 18 Kelly Street, Scone, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

  4. The Respondent is to register the development consent granted in relation to Development Application No. DA19/2020 on the NSW planning portal within 14 days of the date of these orders.

…………………………

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

(Annexure A) (291135, pdf)

Plans_1 (2084285, pdf)

Plans_2 (3961287, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Upper Hunter Developments (Scone) Pty Ltd v Upper Hunter Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 1250
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1250
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Upper Hunter Developments (Scone) Pty Ltd, an applicant for a development approval, brought this action against the Upper Hunter Shire Council, the approving authority under the relevant planning legislation. The dispute centred around the council's decision to refuse the applicant's application for a development approval. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful and justified under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning legislation and whether there was any error in the council's assessment of the application. The applicant argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and that the council had failed to properly consider the merits of the application.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful and justified. The court held that the council had properly considered the relevant planning legislation and that there was no error in the council's assessment of the application. The court found that the council had valid reasons for refusing the development approval, including concerns about the potential impact of the development on the surrounding environment and the applicant's failure to adequately address those concerns. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the council's decision was unreasonable.

The court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the council's decision to refuse the development approval. The court found that the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning legislation and that there was no error in the council's assessment of the application. The court held that the council had valid reasons for refusing the development approval and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the council's decision was unreasonable.

Orders

Orders of the court

See judgment at [18]

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.