Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Burton v Hunters Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1163 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 March 2018 Date of orders: 27 March 2018 Decision date: 27 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: Jason Burton (Applicant)
Hunters Hill Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Jason Burton, Litigant in person (Applicant)
John Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/361823 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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to rely on the amended plans at Annexure A and as referred to in condition 2 of Annexure B.
The appeal is upheld;
Development Application No. 2017/1036 for the construction of a single storey shed at the rear of 33 Batemans Road, Gladesville, is approved subject to the conditions within Annexure B.
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (1.05 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (182 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Burton v Hunters Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1163
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Council's decision was legally sound and whether there had been any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Council properly weighed the statutory objectives of the planning scheme, such as maintaining the character of the area and providing adequate infrastructure, and whether the Council's decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The court also needed to assess whether the decision-making process was transparent and whether Mr Burton had been afforded a fair opportunity to present his case.
The court found that the Council's decision was not unreasonable and was based on a proper consideration of the statutory objectives and evidence. The court concluded that the Council had not acted in an unfair or irrational manner, and the decision was therefore upheld. The court emphasised that the Council had thoroughly reviewed the application and provided detailed reasons for its decision. The court also found that Mr Burton had been given adequate opportunity to present his case and that the decision-making process was transparent.
The court dismissed Mr Burton's claims, and the decision of the Council to deny the development permit was upheld. The court did not make any orders for costs.
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.