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:
Solicitors:
Mr V. Conomos solicitor (Applicant)
Mr A. Simpson solicitor (Respondent)
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/368634
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, 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 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. 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
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- Amanda Siaw v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1194
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1194
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.