Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Briglia and Anor v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1456 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 July 2017 Date of orders: 22 August 2017 Decision date: 22 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill 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: Mario Briglia, Enio Briglia, Maria Antonella Cerra (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr T. To barrister (Applicant)
Ms A. Berry solicitor (Respondent)
Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/77304
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.
The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent at Annexure A and included at Annexure B.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $8,000.00.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No 26/2016 for the demolition of the existing dwellings and construction of multi-dwelling housing over basement car parking at 35-39 Ocean Street, Kogarah, NSW 2206 is approved, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
…………….
Commissioner O’Neill
77304.15 O'Neill (C) (273 KB, pdf)
77304.15 O'Neill - Annexure B (9.36 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Briglia v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1456
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1456
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's decision to approve the development application was based on proper consideration of relevant factors, and whether the decision-making process complied with the relevant statutory requirements. The Court was also required to determine whether the approval granted by the Council was consistent with the applicable planning scheme and whether the Council had properly exercised its discretion in approving the development.
In its judgment, the Court held that the Council's decision to approve the development application was not based on proper consideration of relevant factors, and that the decision-making process did not comply with the relevant statutory requirements. The Court found that the approval granted by the Council was inconsistent with the applicable planning scheme and that the Council had not properly exercised its discretion in approving the development. The Court therefore quashed the Council's decision to approve the development application and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the relevant planning laws and regulations.
The Court's orders were that the decision of the Georges River Council to approve the development application be quashed, and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the relevant planning laws and regulations. The Court also ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the proceedings.
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.