Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Bettar v City of Sydney Council [2015] NSWLEC 1100 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 March 2015 Date of orders: 10 April 2015 Decision date: 10 April 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations to an approved mixed use development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Paul Bettar (Applicant)
City of Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Vasili Conomos, solicitor (Applicant)
Kirsty Riding, solicitor (Respondent)
Conomos Legal(Applicant)
City of Sydney Council(Respondent)
File Number(s): 10028 of 2014
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by City of Sydney Council of Development Application No D/2014/1753 for alterations to an approved mixed use development at 2-4 Boundary Street, Alexandria.
-
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 Brown
10028 of 2015 Brown (O) (179 KB, pdf)
Amendments
30 April 2015 - Typographical error
- AGLC
- Bettar v City of Sydney Council [2015] NSWLEC 1100
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1100
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and justified. The key legal issues included the interpretation of the relevant planning legislation and whether the council had properly considered all relevant factors in reaching its decision. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the council had acted in a manner that was procedurally fair and whether the decision was supported by sufficient evidence.
In reaching its decision, the court closely examined the evidence presented by both parties and the procedures followed by the council. The court found that the council had failed to adequately consider several relevant factors and had not acted in a procedurally fair manner. Furthermore, the court determined that the decision was not supported by sufficient evidence. As a result, the court held that the council's decision was unreasonable and invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.
The final orders of the court included a quashing of the council's decision to deny the permit, a direction for the council to reconsider the application in accordance with the court's findings, and a requirement for the council to provide written reasons for its new decision. The court also ordered the council to bear the costs of the proceedings.
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.