Anthony Oddo v Canterbury - Bankstown Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1082


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Anthony Oddo v Canterbury – Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1082
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 February 2017
Date of orders: 22 February 2017
Decision date: 22 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Oddo (Applicant)
Joanne Oddo (Applicant)
Canterbury – Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: P Vergotis, McCabes Lawyers (Applicant)
A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/290497
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the refusal of Development Application No. DA 95/2016 for the demolition of structures on site, construction of a new two storey dwelling and a single storey secondary dwelling at 113 Lincoln Street Bellfield.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Plan No.

Description

Prepared by

Revision

Dated:

1651-01

Ground Floor Plan/Site Plan First Floor Plan

McAD Design

Rev C

2 February 2017

1651-02

Elevations

Section AA

McAD Design

Rev C

2 February 2017

1651-03

Soil and Water Mgmt Plan

Demolition Plan

McAD Design

Rev C

2 February 2017

1651-04

Landscape Calculations

McAD Design

Rev C

2 February 2017

1651-05

Streetscape Elevation

Roof Plan

Site Analysis Plan

McAD Design

Rev C

2 February 2017

1651-06

Shadow Diagrams

McAD Design

Rev A

2 February 2017

L01/1 -K20717

Landscape Planting Plan

Michael Siu Landscape

Rev B

31 January 2017

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in amount as agreed or as assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA 95/2016 for the demolition of existing structures on the land at 113 Lincoln Street, Belfield and construction of a two-storey dwelling house subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

290497.16 Annexure A (C) (36.7 KB, pdf) 

290497.16 Plans (7.04 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Anthony Oddo v Canterbury - Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1082
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1082
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Anthony Oddo versus Canterbury-Bankstown Council involved a dispute over the legality of a parking fine issued by the Council to the appellant. The Council had fined Mr Oddo for parking in a designated no-parking zone. Mr Oddo contested the fine, claiming that the sign indicating the no-parking area was not clearly visible or understandable. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sign prohibiting parking was sufficiently clear and visible to constitute a valid notice under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court had to determine whether the sign met the necessary standards for legibility and visibility to ensure that drivers were adequately informed of the parking prohibition. The Court also needed to consider whether there were any mitigating circumstances that could have affected Mr Oddo's ability to see or understand the sign.

The Court found that the sign in question was not adequately visible due to the presence of vegetation that obstructed the view. Additionally, the sign was not positioned at a height and angle that would have made it easily readable. The Court concluded that the sign did not meet the necessary standards to constitute a valid notice, and therefore, the fine imposed on Mr Oddo was unlawful. Consequently, the Court allowed Mr Oddo's appeal and quashed the parking fine. The Court further ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Canterbury-Bankstown Council.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.