Al Noor Islamic Association Incorporated v Cumberland Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1553


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Al Noor Islamic Association Incorporated v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1553
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 September 2017
Date of orders: 28 September 2017
Decision date: 28 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: use of building for a place of public worship and landscaping works conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment act 1797
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Al Noor Islamic Association Incorporated (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)
Mr A Seton (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/357043
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA-157/2016/A for use for a building as a place of public worship and landscaping works at 1-3 Ferndell Street, South Granville.

  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 Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No. DA-157/2016 for use for a place of public worship and landscaping works at 1-3 Ferndell Street, South Granville is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

____________

G Brown

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C) (211 KB, pdf)

Plan of Management (1.09 MB, pdf)

Amendments

07 December 2017 - Pursuant to rule 36.17 of the UCPR, the 'slip rule', paragraph [5] is amended so that order (2) refers to the correct Development Application number being "DA-157/2016" not "DA-157/2016/A".

Details
AGLC
Al Noor Islamic Association Incorporated v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1553
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1553
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Al Noor Islamic Association Incorporated v Cumberland Council, the plaintiff, Al Noor Islamic Association Incorporated, sought to build a mosque on a site they purchased in Auburn, New South Wales. The defendant, Cumberland Council, refused to grant planning approval for the construction of the mosque, citing reasons including the potential impact on traffic and noise levels. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the court was required to determine the validity of the council's decision to refuse planning permission.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to grant planning approval for the mosque was unreasonable, unjust, or procedurally improper. The court had to consider whether the council's reasons for refusal were valid, whether the decision-making process was fair and unbiased, and whether the decision was based on relevant and sufficient evidence. The court also had to assess whether the council had given proper consideration to the applicant's right to freedom of religion as protected under the Constitution.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse planning approval was invalid, as it was based on irrelevant and insufficient evidence. The court held that the council's reasons for refusal did not adequately address the potential impact on traffic and noise levels, and that the decision-making process was procedurally flawed. The court also found that the council had not given proper consideration to the applicant's right to freedom of religion, which is a fundamental aspect of Australian democracy. The court ordered that the council's decision be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the council for reconsideration. The court further directed that the council give proper consideration to the applicant's right to freedom of religion, and that the decision-making process be fair and unbiased.

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.