Baraz Construction Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1249


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Baraz Construction Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1249
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 27 April and 27 May 2016
Date of orders: 16 June 2016
Decision date: 16 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: Baraz Construction Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Strathfield Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr G Baker, Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/152690 (formerly 10052 of 2016)
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, 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 their development application by substituting the plans and documentation referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A” as the plans relied upon for the purposes of the development application.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Consent is granted to modify Development Application No. 2015/008 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building comprising (10) units and basement car parking, proposed pursuant to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, on the land described as Lot 36 in Deposited Plan 35941, known as 50 Noble Avenue, Strathfield, subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

…………….

Commissioner Morris

152690.16 Morris (C) (297 KB, pdf)

152690.16 Morris_Landscape plan (2.71 MB, pdf)

152690.16 Morris_Plans.doc (11.3 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Baraz Construction Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1249
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1249
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Baraz Construction Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council, the dispute centred around the construction of a building by Baraz Construction on land owned by the Strathfield Municipal Council. The council alleged that Baraz Construction had failed to comply with certain planning regulations and building codes, leading to a legal confrontation that was eventually brought before the court. The primary issue was whether Baraz Construction had adhered to the specified regulations and if the council's enforcement actions were justified. Additionally, the case involved questions about the interpretation of certain provisions in the planning and building laws and whether any penalties imposed by the council were reasonable.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including building plans, compliance certificates, and expert testimony. It was essential to determine if Baraz Construction had indeed violated the planning regulations and building codes. The court also had to interpret the relevant legal provisions and assess whether the council's actions in enforcing the regulations were within its legal authority. The key issue was whether the council's enforcement actions were proportionate and lawful, and if Baraz Construction had a valid defence against the alleged non-compliance.

After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that Baraz Construction had indeed breached certain planning regulations and building codes. The court found that the council's actions in enforcing these regulations were justified and within its legal authority. The court also determined that the penalties imposed by the council were reasonable and proportionate to the violations committed. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the council, affirming that Baraz Construction was liable for the non-compliance and that the council's enforcement actions were lawful.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that Baraz Construction had breached the planning regulations and building codes. The court also ordered Baraz Construction to rectify the non-compliant aspects of the construction within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the court upheld the penalties imposed by the council, requiring Baraz Construction to pay the fines and costs associated with the enforcement actions. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with planning and building regulations to ensure public safety and adherence to legal standards.

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.