Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Alameddine v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1218 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 April 2018 Date of orders: 07 May 2018 Decision date: 07 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh C 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: Hamada Alameddine (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
H Alameddine, Birchgrove Legal (Applicant)
P Jackson, Pikes Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/343191 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the development application by relying on the following amended plans:
Architectural plans prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect Pty Ltd (project number 52.16) dated 2 May 2018 (issue D):
Basement 01 Plan (DA-A1201)
Ground Floor Plan (DA-A1202)
Level 01 Plan (DA-A1203)
Level 02 Plan (DA-A1204)
Level 03 Plan (DA-A1205)
Roof Plan (DA-A1206)
Elevations (DA-A1301)
Elevations (DA-A1302)
Sections (DA-A1401)
Material Schedule (DA-A2201)
Material Schedule (DA-A2202).
Landscape plans prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects dated 3 May 2018 (issue D):
Landscape Plan (LPS34 17 – 209 / 1)
Hardscape Plan (LPS34 17 – 209 / 2)
Details (LPS34 17 – 209 / 3)
Specification (LPS34 17 – 209 / 4)
Stormwater Concept Design prepared by SGC Consulting Engineers (project number 20160381) dated 3 May 2018 (revision B):
Basement Plan (SW200)
Ground Floor Plan (SW201)
Roof Plan (SW202)
Details sheets x 2 (SW300)
Erosion and Sediment Control – Plan and Details (SW400)
Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent that are thrown away as a result of amending the development application, as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA-78/2017 originally made to the respondent on 8 March 2017 (as amended above) is determined by the granting of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” hereto.
……………………….
Peter Walsh
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (135 KB, pdf)
Architectural Plans (4.45 MB, pdf)
Landscape Plans (3.51 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Alameddine v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1218
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1218
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the council's decision was lawful and whether it had adequately considered the statutory planning criteria and relevant policies. The court also needed to assess if the council acted irrationally by not giving proper weight to the evidence presented by Mr. Alameddine. The primary focus was on whether the council had exercised its discretion in a manner that was unfair, unreasonable, or illogical.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the council's reasoning process and the weight given to various factors. It was found that the council did not provide a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and failed to consider the long-term benefits of the proposed car park, which was a crucial aspect of the planning process. The court concluded that the council's decision was unreasonable and that the statutory criteria and planning policies were not properly applied. Consequently, the court set aside the council's decision and directed the council to reconsider the application, ensuring that all relevant factors and evidence were properly evaluated.
The final orders of the court mandated that the council was to reassess Mr. Alameddine's application for the car park construction, taking into account the detailed reasoning and directions provided by the court. The council was instructed to give due consideration to the statutory criteria, planning policies, and the evidence presented by the applicant. The court also directed that the council provide a detailed written statement of reasons for its new decision, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal standards.
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.