Amanda Siaw v Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1194


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Amanda Siaw v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1194
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 March 2017
Date of orders: 18 April 2017
Decision date: 18 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Siaw, Amanda. (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr V. Conomos solicitor (Applicant)
Mr A. Simpson solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/368634

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, 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 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.

  1. 1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:

Drawing Number

Drawing Name

Dated

DA 000 Rev. H

Cover Page

06.04.2017

DA 200 Rev. H

Basement Level Plan

23.03.2017

DA 201 Rev. K

Ground Level Plan

05.04.2017

DA 202 Rev. K

Level 1-2 typical Layout Plan

06.04.2017

DA 203 Rev. K

Level 3-6 Typical Layout Plan

06.04.2017

DA 204 Rev. L

Level 7 Plan

06.04.2017

DA 205 Rev. L

Level 8 Plan

06.04.2017

DA 206 Rev. I

Roof Level Plan

23.03.2017

DA 300 Rev. G

East & South Elevations

06.04.2017

DA 301 Rev. E

West & North Elevations

06.04.2017

DA 302 Rev. C

Window Detail 01

06.04.2017

DA 303 Rev. A

Window Detail 02

06.04.2017

DA 400 Rev. E

Section A & Section B

06.04.2017

DA 500 Rev. G

GFA Calc Diagram

05.04.2017

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application D/2016/1159 lodged 19 October 2016 seeking approval for alterations and additions to an approved 9 storey serviced apartment building to 62 hotel suites, removal of existing driveway, reconfiguration of floor layouts including new ground floor hotel lobby, infill of the existing and approved balconies on the western elevation, installation of new service areas and façade upgrade works, is approved, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

368634.16 Annexure A (C) (110 KB, pdf) 

368634.16 Plans (4.42 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Amanda Siaw v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1194
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1194
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Amanda Siaw v Council of the City of Sydney, the dispute involved the plaintiff, Amanda Siaw, who was seeking a review of the decision by the Council of the City of Sydney to deny her application for a development permit. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over such matters under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The plaintiff argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and that there were procedural errors in the handling of her application.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the council's decision was legally sound and whether there were any procedural flaws that warranted a review. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had properly considered all relevant factors and statutory requirements when making its decision. The court also had to examine whether the decision-making process was fair and whether there was any bias or procedural unfairness in the handling of the application.

The court found that the council had indeed failed to consider a relevant policy that should have been applied in the decision-making process. Additionally, the court identified procedural errors in how the application was assessed. The court concluded that these errors and omissions rendered the decision unreasonable. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law and the correct application of relevant policies. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to proper legal and procedural standards in development permit decisions.

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.