Alex Hugo Tian v Willoughby City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1749


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

  1. 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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. 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

Details
AGLC
Alex Hugo Tian v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1749
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1749
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Alex Hugo Tian, the appellant, and Willoughby City Council, the respondent. The dispute centred around the respondent's refusal to grant the appellant permission to construct a single-storey house on his property located at 123 Willow Street, Willoughby. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Groves. The appellant sought to appeal the refusal, contending that the decision was unreasonable and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

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.