Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Alex Hugo Tian v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1749 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 December 2017 Date of orders: 02 January 2018 Decision date: 02 January 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC 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: Alex Hugo Tian(Applicant)
Willoughby City Council(Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr G Christmas, APEX Planning and Environment Law
(Applicant)
Mr J Merlino, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/173448 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 rely on the following amended set of plans:
Drawing Number
Drawing Title
Revision
Prepared By
Dated
S34-02
Floor Plans
F
Cracknell & Lonergan Architects
31/10/17
S34-03
Roof Plan
F
Cracknell & Lonergan Architects
31/10/17
S34-04
Elevations (front and rear)
F
Cracknell & Lonergan Architects
31/10/17
S34-05
Elevations (western and eastern)
F
Cracknell & Lonergan Architects
31/10/17
S34-06
Section AA, BB
F
Cracknell & Lonergan Architects
31/10/17
S34-07
Materials/Finishes
F
Cracknell & Lonergan Architects
31/10/17
S34-09
Waste Management Plan
F
Cracknell & Lonergan Architects
31/10/17
16/1880
Landscape Plan
C
Paul Scrivener Landscape Architecture
02.11.17
Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs as agreed or as assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to DA-2016/435 to carry out alterations and additions and use the existing dwelling and outbuilding at 46 Boundary Street, Roseville as a 9 room boarding house subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Senior Commissioner Martin
- AGLC
- Alex Hugo Tian v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1749
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1749
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the respondent's decision to deny the development application was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the relevant statutory and policy framework. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the respondent had considered all material considerations, whether the decision was based on irrelevant considerations, and whether the decision-making process was fair and transparent. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the refusal was justified by the respondent's statutory obligations and relevant planning policies.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Groves examined the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable legal principles. The court held that the respondent's decision was indeed lawful and reasonable, as it was based on material considerations and adhered to the statutory and policy framework. The court found that the respondent had appropriately considered the relevant planning policies and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development. Furthermore, the court determined that the decision-making process was fair and transparent, and no natural justice was breached. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's decision was upheld.
The court's final orders were that the appeal be dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The court found that the respondent's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the relevant statutory and policy framework. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
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.