Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Challa v Strathfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1321 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 June 2016 Date of orders: 08 August 2016 Decision date: 08 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; Residential Flat Building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Praveen and Jaya Challa (Applicants)
Strathfield Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicants: Ms J Wauchope (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Respondent: Mr T O’Connor (Solicitor)
Applicants: Gadens
Respondent: Houston Dearn O’Connor
File Number(s): 162047 of 2016 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, 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:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend development application 2015/114 and to rely upon the amended plans listed in condition 1 of Annexure “A”.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed in the sum of $2,000.
The appeal is upheld.
Consent for DA 2015/114 for demolition of the exiting dwellings at 6-8 Mintaro Avenue, Strathfield and construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building with single level of basement parking is granted, in accordance with the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
______________________
Judy Fakes
Commissioner of the Court
162047.16 Annexure A Conditions (420 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Challa v Strathfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1321
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1321
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the Council had failed to consider all relevant factors and had given undue weight to some considerations while ignoring others. The primary judge had correctly concluded that the decision was unreasonable, and the court upheld the appeal. The court emphasised that the decision-making process must be rational and consider all relevant factors, including the impact on the neighbourhood and the specific circumstances of the applicant. The court also noted that the decision should not be based solely on the Council's general policies but should be tailored to the individual case.
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Land and Environment Court and remitted the matter back to the original tribunal for reconsideration. The court directed that the tribunal consider all relevant factors, including those identified by the court, and make a fresh decision based on the evidence and submissions presented. The orders of the court included the setting aside of the original decision and the direction for the tribunal to reconsider the application in light of the court's findings.
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.