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
-
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.
-
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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
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
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.
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- Anthony Oddo v Canterbury - Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1082
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1082
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.