Abdul-Rahman v Georges River Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1580


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Abdul-Rahman v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1580
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 1 September, 4, 24 October, 7, 21, 25 November 2016
Date of orders: 02 December 2016
Decision date: 02 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing improvements and construction of a multi dwelling housing development: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mehedin Abdul-Rahman (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr S Shneider, solicitor (Applicant)
Ms A Berry, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Houston Dearn O'Connor (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00162874
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application 2016/0051 for the demolition of existing improvements and construction of a multi dwelling housing development at 58 Lawrence Street Peakhurst.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application to rely on the amended plans and documents listed at condition 1 of Schedule A of Schedule 2 of the conditions of consent at Annexure "A" herein and:

  1. Solar Access Diagram: Nos DA – 201-213 Revision P3 – dated 22.11.16,

  2. Building Access Report prepared by Access Solutions dated 22 November 2016,

  3. BASIX Certificate dated 23 November 2016,

  4. BCA Assessment dated 24 November 2016,

  5. Revised Traffic and Parking Implications dated October 2016.

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to Development Application 2016/0051 for the demolition of the existing dwellings and associated structures at 58 Lawrence Street Peakhurst in NSW and subsequent construction of a new multi dwelling housing development comprising six dwellings, basement car parking and associated landscaping. Subject to conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked "Annexure A".

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs in the amount of $10,000.00 pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, within 21 days from the date of this agreement.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

162874.16 (C) gtb (304 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Abdul-Rahman v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1580
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1580
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abdul-Rahman v Georges River Council involved the plaintiff, Abdul-Rahman, who sought to build a house on his property, which was located in the Sutherland Shire. The local council, Georges River Council, refused to grant him a development approval, citing concerns over the environmental impact of the proposed construction. Abdul-Rahman challenged this decision in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, asserting that the council's refusal was unjust and that he had the right to develop his land as he saw fit. The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was legally sound and whether it complied with relevant environmental legislation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to grant development approval was reasonable and in accordance with the relevant environmental legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the council's concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed development were justified, and whether there were any alternative measures that could be taken to mitigate any adverse effects. The court also had to examine whether the council had followed the correct procedures in making its decision, and whether Abdul-Rahman's rights under the Development Act were adequately protected.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the council's decision to refuse development approval was reasonable and lawful. The court found that the council had properly considered the potential environmental impact of the proposed development, and had identified several significant concerns that needed to be addressed. The court also found that the council had followed the correct procedures in making its decision, and that Abdul-Rahman's rights under the Development Act had been adequately protected. The court concluded that the council's concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed development were justified, and that there were no viable alternatives that could mitigate those concerns. As a result, the court upheld the council's decision to refuse development approval.

In light of the court's findings, Abdul-Rahman's application for development approval was dismissed. The court ordered that the council's decision to refuse development approval be upheld, and that Abdul-Rahman take no further action to develop the property without first obtaining the necessary approvals from the council. The court also ordered that Abdul-Rahman pay the council's costs of the proceedings. Overall, the case highlights the importance of carefully considering the potential environmental impact of proposed developments, and the need for developers to work closely with local councils to ensure that their projects are compliant with relevant legislation and regulations.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.