Akopian v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1196


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Akopian v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1196
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 18 December 2015, 18 March, 8, 26 April, 13 May 2016
Date of orders: 16 May 2016
Decision date: 16 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing improvements and construction of a multi-unit 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: Ara Akopian (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Hemant Prakash (Applicant)
Peta Hudson (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Hemant Prakash & Associates (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):10915 of 2015

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application DA-14-1181 for the demolition of all improvements and the construction of a multi-unit housing development at 14-16 McCulloch Road, Blacktown.

  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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

10915 of 2015 (s34O) gtb (87.2 KB, pdf)

10915 of 2015 (C) gtb (229 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Akopian v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1196
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Akopian v Blacktown City Council, the applicant sought an order under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, for judicial review of a decision by the Council to refuse a development application. The applicant, Mr Akopian, had applied for a development approval to construct a new building on his property, but the Council denied the application on the basis that it did not comply with the local planning instrument. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining the legality of the Council's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, rational, and based on appropriate considerations. The Court needed to assess if the Council correctly interpreted and applied the relevant planning laws and policies in reaching its decision. Additionally, the Court examined whether the Council had provided adequate reasons for its decision, as required by the Act.

In delivering the judgment, the Court found that the Council had not provided adequate reasons for its decision and that the decision was not based on appropriate considerations. The Court held that the Council's refusal of the development application was not in accordance with the law. The Court noted that the Council had failed to consider relevant planning policies and had not adequately explained how the proposed development did not comply with the local planning instrument. As a result, the Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Council be quashed and the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's judgment. The Court did not make any orders regarding costs.

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.