Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Baraz Construction Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1493 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 June, 15 & 31 July, 13 August and 29 September 2015 Date of orders: 27 November 2015 Decision date: 27 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Infill affordable housing; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Baraz Construction Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr J McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10321 of 2015 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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
…………….
Commissioner Morris
10321 of 2015 27 November 2015 (72.7 KB, pdf)
10321 of 2015 Morris (C) (181 KB, pdf)
10321 of 2015 Morris_Plans (8.69 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Baraz Construction Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1493
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1493
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues addressed were whether the council's decision was lawful, and whether the council's consideration of the application was procedurally fair. Baraz argued that the council's failure to consider certain planning scheme provisions rendered the decision unlawful. The applicant also contended that the decision-making process was flawed, as the council did not provide reasons for its decision or consider relevant material.
The court found that the council's decision was indeed flawed, as it failed to consider certain provisions of the planning scheme and zoning laws. Additionally, the court held that the decision-making process was procedurally unfair, as the council did not provide reasons for its decision and did not consider relevant material. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions. The council was ordered to consider the application afresh, taking into account all relevant planning scheme provisions and material, and to provide reasons for its decision.
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.