Anna Countouris v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1228


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Anna Countouris v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1228
Hearing dates: Conciliation on 6 and 24 April 2017
Date of orders: 04 May 2017
Decision date: 04 May 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson 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: Anna Countouris (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
D Loether, Bartier Perry (Applicant)
A Singh, City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/9868
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. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. D/2016/415 and to rely upon the following amended plans, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Drawing No.

Drawing Name

Prepared by

Date

A.01.1, Revision 7

Location Plan/Title Page

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.01.2, Revision 7

Site Plan

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.01.3, Revision 7

Photos – Existing Conditions

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.01.4, Revision 7

Photomontage

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.01.5, Revision 7

Perspectives

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.01.6, Revision 7

Perspectives

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.01.7, Revision 7

Ground Floor

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.01.8, Revision 7

1st Floor Plan

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.01.9, Revision 7

2nd Floor Plan

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.01.10, Revision 7

3rd Floor Plan

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.02.1, Revision 7

Ground Floor – GFA diagram

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.02.2, Revision 7

1st Floor – GFA diagram

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.02.3, Revision 7

2nd Floor – GFA Diagram

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.02.4, Revision 7

3rd Floor – GFA Diagram

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.03.1, Revision 7

Section AA

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.03.2, Revision 7

Section BB

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.04.1, Revision 7

North-East Elevation

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.04.2, Revision 7

South-East Elevation

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.04.3, Revision 7

South-West Elevation

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.04.4, Revision 7

North-West Elevation

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.05.1, Revision 7

Overshadow Diagram to Windows of 291 Broadway

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.05.2, Revision 7

Overshadow Diagram Existing Conditions Mid-Winter (21 June)

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.05.3, Revision 7

Overshadow Diagram Existing Conditions Mid-Autumn (21 March)

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.05.4, Revision 7

Overshadow Diagram Proposed Conditions Mid-Winter (21 June)

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.05.5, Revision 7

Overshadow Diagram Proposed Conditions Mid-Autumn (21 March)

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.05.6, Revision 7

Outdoor Communal Area Direct Sun Access

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.06.1, Revision 7

Ground Floor Landscape Plan

DesignInc

5 April 2017

A.07.2, Revision 7

Operable Louvre Detail

DesignInc

5 April 2017

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. D/2016/415 and to rely upon the following further documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “B”:

Document

Prepared by

Date

Addendum to Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) for DA D/2016/415 to reflect changes proposed by amended architectural drawings

Neustein Urban

11 April 2017

BASIX Certificate 747691M_02

Gradwell Consulting

31 March 2017

Plan of Management Boarding House

NC Assets Holdings Pty Ltd

Undated

BCA Capability Report

Vic Lilli & Partners Consulting

12 April 2017

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  2. Development Application No. D/2016/415 (as amended) for the proposed demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey boarding house, comprising 17 boarding rooms, common room and landscaping on Lot 6 in Deposited Plan 259580, otherwise known 1 Derwent Lane, Glebe, be approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “C”.

…………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

9868.17 Annexure A part 1 (15.9 MB, pdf)

9868.17 Annexure A part 2 (13.6 MB, pdf)

9868.17 Annexure A part 3 (13.1 MB, pdf)

9868.17 Annexure B (1.41 MB, pdf)

9868.17 Annexure C (C) (109 KB, pdf)

Amendments

04 May 2017 - Annexures A and B added

Details
AGLC
Anna Countouris v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1228
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1228
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Anna Countouris versus the Council of the City of Sydney involved a dispute concerning the approval and construction of a proposed building in the City of Sydney. The plaintiff, Anna Countouris, sought to challenge the decision of the defendant, the Council of the City of Sydney, to refuse her development application for the proposed building. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and based on proper consideration of relevant factors. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Council had acted in accordance with the relevant planning laws and whether the decision was supported by sufficient evidence. Another key issue was whether the plaintiff had a legitimate expectation of approval, based on prior communications and representations made by the Council.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and considered the relevant planning laws and policies. The court found that the Council's decision was not based on proper consideration of relevant factors and was therefore unlawful. The court held that the Council had failed to adequately consider the impact of the proposed building on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and had not properly assessed the merits of the development application in accordance with the relevant planning laws. The court further found that the plaintiff had a legitimate expectation of approval, based on prior communications and representations made by the Council. As a result, the court set aside the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.

In light of the court's decision, the orders made were that the decision of the Council of the City of Sydney to refuse the development application be set aside, and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceeding be paid by the Council of the City of Sydney.

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.