Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Antonio Campos v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1071 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 December 2016, 14 February 2017 Date of orders: 20 February 2017 Decision date: 20 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: Antonio Campos (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Marc Jaku, Jaku Legal (Applicant)
Mark Bonanno, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/270940 Publication restriction: No
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 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 granted leave to rely upon amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Part B of the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Consent is granted to Development Application No. D/2016/331 for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new mixed use building, including 7 residential apartments, commercial tenancies and car parking at 377 Parramatta Road, Leichhardt, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”.
…………….
M Chilcott
Commissioner
270940.16 Annexure A (C) (111 KB, pdf)
270940.16 Plans (part 1) (15.2 MB, pdf)
270940.16 Plans (part 2) (13.7 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Antonio Campos v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1071
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1071
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Council's decision was based on relevant considerations, whether there was any error in the interpretation or application of the planning scheme, and whether the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.
Justice Pain found that the Council's decision was not based on all relevant considerations, as it failed to take into account the overall benefit to the community that the proposed development would bring. The court held that the Council's reliance on a single aspect of the planning scheme, which was the preservation of the area's character, was insufficient to justify the refusal of the development approval. The court also found that the decision was unreasonable as it did not strike a fair balance between the preservation of the area's character and the potential benefits of the proposed development. Consequently, the court set aside the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.
The final order of the court was that the decision of the Inner West Council to refuse the development approval be set aside, and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons. The court further ordered that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the Council.
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.