Ashabul Kahfi Islamic Centre Inc v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1730


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Ashabul Kahfi Islamic Centre Inc v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1730
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 15 December 2017
Date of orders: 19 December 2017
Decision date: 19 December 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ashabul Kahfi Islamic Centre Inc (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr G Garrett, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/82796
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 Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans and documentation in the proceedings:

Drawing Number

Drawing Title

Revision

Prepared By

Dated

A1101

Demolition Plan

A

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

22/06/2015

A1200

Basement Plan

E

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

31/08/2017

A1201

Ground Floor Plan

E

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

31/08/2017

A1202

Level 01

E

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

31/08/2017

A1203

Roof Plan

E

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

31/08/2017

A1500

Elevations (South and North)

E

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

31/08/2017

A1501

Elevations (East and West)

E

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

31/08/2017

A1600

Material Schedule

B

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

21/09/2017

A1601

Material Schedule

B

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

21/09/2017

A1700

Sections

F

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

21/09/2017

A1750

Tree Section

A

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

15/08/2017

SW01

Cover Sheet

C

SGC

31/08/2017

SW02

Stormwater Concept Design – Basement Plan

C

SGC

31/08/2017

SW03

Stormwater Concept Design – Ground Floor Plan

C

SGC

31/08/2017

SW04

Stormwater Concept Design – Details Sheet

C

SGC

31/08/2017

SW05

Sediment and Erosion Control – Plan and Details

C

SGC

31/08/2017

Doc No.

Document Name

Revision

Prepared By

Dated

150623-
01L-DD

Noise Assessment

02

Acoustic Consulting Engineers

31/08/2017

-

Operational Plan of Management

-

7 November 2017

Appendix A Operational Plan of Management – Parking Demand Analysis & Patronage Schedule

-

15 July 2017

Disability Access Report

-

Access Solutions

11/5/2016

G16033WP
-R01F

Geotechnical Investigation Report

-

Geo-environmental Engineering

23/3/2016

Waste Management Plan

-

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

24/6/2016

5184/A

Arboricultural Impact Assessment

-

TreeTalk Arboricultural Consulting

August 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 the sum of $9,000.00 payable within 60 days of the date of this agreement.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application DA 286/2016 lodged on 5 July 2016, as amended, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Smithson

Annexure A (C) (411 KB, pdf)

FINAL plans (7.26 MB, pdf)

Amendments

19 December 2017 - Conditions of consent attached as Annexure A.

Details
AGLC
Ashabul Kahfi Islamic Centre Inc v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1730
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1730
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Ashabul Kahfi Islamic Centre Inc and Canterbury-Bankstown Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Ashabul Kahfi Islamic Centre Inc sought to build a community centre and mosque in a designated commercial area in Bankstown. Canterbury-Bankstown Council refused the Centre’s development application, citing non-compliance with the local environmental plan and zoning by-laws. The Centre appealed the decision, arguing that the refusal was unreasonable and discriminatory. The court was required to determine whether the Council’s decision was lawful and whether it breached any statutory provisions or principles of natural justice.

The central legal issues involved whether the Council's refusal of the development application was in accordance with the applicable planning legislation, specifically the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The court also needed to consider whether the refusal was discriminatory or whether it adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Additionally, the court examined whether the decision was unreasonable in the sense that it was irrational or not based on proper consideration of relevant factors.

The court found that the Council’s decision to refuse the development application was lawful and not discriminatory. The refusal was based on the Centre’s failure to comply with the local environmental plan and zoning by-laws, which designated the area for commercial use rather than community facilities. The court held that the Council had acted within its statutory powers and followed proper procedures. The appeal was dismissed as the Centre did not demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable or breached any legal principles. The court emphasised that the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislation and was not influenced by any improper considerations.

The final orders of the court included dismissing the appeal and affirming the Council’s decision to refuse the development application. The Centre was also ordered to pay the Council’s costs of the appeal.

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.