Bettar v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1429


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bettar v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1429
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 August 2018
Date of orders: 14 August 2018
Decision date: 14 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Paul Bettar (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Duggan SC (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
A Singh, City of Sydney Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/31458
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure A. The parties agree that the amendments are not minor for the purposes of section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) in the sum of $34,423.39 within twenty eight (28) days from the date of these orders.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. The clause 4.6 variation request relating to height is upheld.

  5. Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2017/1720 for the addition of two storeys to the building approved under development consent D/2016/330 together with modifications to the conditions of D/2016/330 to incorporate design changes to the development pursuant to both consents, which is located at 55-57 and 59 Wentworth Avenue, Sydney being all that land comprised in Lots 7, 8 and 9 in DP 6380, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure B.

……………………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (13.2 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (239 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bettar v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1429
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1429
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bettar v The Council of the City of Sydney was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose when Mr Bettar, a property owner, contested a decision by the City of Sydney Council to refuse him a permit for a proposed development on his property. Mr Bettar sought judicial review of the Council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and not based on the proper consideration of relevant planning and environmental factors. The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's decision was compliant with the relevant planning laws and whether it was made in a manner that was procedurally fair to Mr Bettar.

The Court considered the statutory framework governing development permits, specifically the Local Environment Plan and the relevant planning policies. It assessed whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers, adhered to the procedural requirements, and appropriately considered all relevant factors. The Court examined the evidence presented and the Council's reasoning in refusing the permit. It determined whether the decision was reasonable in light of the applicable laws and policies and whether there were any errors of law or procedural unfairness.

In its judgment, the Court found that the Council had not adequately considered several key factors, including the impact of the proposed development on the local environment and heritage. The Court concluded that the decision was not in accordance with the relevant planning laws and was therefore unreasonable. The Court also found procedural flaws in the decision-making process, including a failure to provide Mr Bettar with an adequate opportunity to respond to certain issues. As a result, the Court set aside the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment.

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.