Abdul-Rahman v Strathfield Municipal Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1213


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Abdul-Rahman v Strathfield Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1213
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 9 February, 10, 11 March, 20 April, 16 May 2016
Date of orders: 26 May 2016
Decision date: 26 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Omar Abdul Rahman (Applicant)
Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
A Spizzo, Landerer & Company (Applicant)
S Shneider, Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00154119 (Formerly 2015/11122)
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. ACTING 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 amended plans prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect and SGC Consulting Pty Ltd:

  1. Demolition plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1101, Issue B dated 20 May 2016

  2. Basement Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1200, Issue E dated 21 March 2016

  3. Ground Floor Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1201, Issue E dated 21 March 2016

  4. Level 01 Floor Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. 1202 Issue E dated 21 March 2016

  5. Level 02 Floor Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1203, Issue E dated 21 March 2016

  6. Roof Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1204, Issue E dated 21 March 2016

  7. South East and North West Elevation prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1500, Issue E dated 21 March 2016

  8. South West and North East Elevation prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1501, Issue E dated 21 March 2016

  9. Section AA and BB prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1700, Issue E dated 21 March 2016.

  10. Ground Floor Landscape Plan prepared by Concept Landscape Architects Dwg No LPDA 15 -446/1 Issue D dated March 2016

  11. Level 2 Landscape Plan prepared by Concept Landscape Architects Dwg No LPDA 15 -446/2 Issue C dated March 2016

  12. Landscape Details prepared by Concept Landscape Architects Dwg No LPDA 15 -446/3 Issue A dated May 2015

  13. Stormwater Concept Design Basement Plan Dwg No SW02 Issue C prepared by SGC Consultants dated 24 March 2016

  14. Stormwater Concept Design Ground Floor Plan Dwg No SW03 Issue C prepared by SGC Consultants dated 24 March 2016

  15. Stormwater Concept Design Roof Plan Dwg No SW04 Issue C prepared by SGC Consultants dated 24 March 2016

  16. Stormwater Concept Design Details Sheet Dwg No SW05 Issue C prepared by SGC Consultants dated 24 March 2016

  17. Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Dwg No SW06 Issue C prepared by SGC Consultants dated 24 March 2016

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Application DA 2015/069 lodged on 2 July 2015 (as amended by the plans referred to at 1 herein) for a 3 storey apartment building of 25 residential units including 14 units set aside for affordable housing at 25 – 29 Anselm Street Strathfield South is approved subject to the conditions annexed and marked “A”.

  3. Pursuant to Section 97B of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 the Applicant pay the Council's costs thrown away in the amount of $5000.00.

…………….

Jenny Smithson

Acting Commissioner

154119.16 - Annexure A (88.9 KB, pdf)

154119.16 - Architectural Plans (10.4 MB, pdf)

154119.16 - Hydraulic Plans (2.25 MB, pdf)

154119.16 - Landscape Plans (5.10 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Abdul-Rahman v Strathfield Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1213
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abdul-Rahman v Strathfield Municipal Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Abdul-Rahman, sought to have a decision of the Strathfield Municipal Council reviewed and quashed. The Council had refused to issue a permit for the construction of a mosque on land that Abdul-Rahman owned. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Local Government Act 1993 and the council's planning policies, particularly concerning the suitability of the site for religious purposes.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's decision to deny the permit was lawful, reasonable, and justified under the Act. The court had to consider the extent to which the Council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and policies, and whether the decision was made in accordance with the statutory framework. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was any procedural unfairness or bias in the Council's decision-making process.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the statutory provisions and the relevant planning policies and concluded that the Council's decision was not supported by proper consideration of the statutory criteria. The court found that the Council had failed to adequately justify its reasons for denying the permit, particularly in relation to the suitability of the site for religious purposes. The court also noted that the Council had not properly considered the impact of its decision on Abdul-Rahman's right to freedom of religion. Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court included quashing the Council's decision, remitting the matter for reconsideration, and awarding costs to the plaintiff. The court emphasised that the Council must properly consider the statutory criteria and ensure that its decision is based on lawful and reasonable grounds. The court also highlighted the importance of respecting the rights of individuals to freedom of religion when making planning decisions.

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.