Conrad Johnston v Inner West Council

[2017] NSWLEC 1650

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Conrad Johnston v Inner West Council
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2017] NSWLEC 1650
Hearing Date(s):	Conciliation conference on 17 October & 8 November 2017
Date of Orders:	15 November 2017
Decision Date:	15 November 2017
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Dickson 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:	Conrad Johnston (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitor: Mr A Knox, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) Mr S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2017/195880
Publication Restriction:	No

JUDGMENT

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against Council’s deemed refusal of development application number D/2017/66. The application seeks approval to carry out alterations and additions to a heritage listed property at 8 Broderick Street, Balmain.

2. 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”.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

   (1)The appeal is upheld.

   (2)The applicant is granted leave to rely upon the architectural drawings annexed hereto and marked with the letter “A”.

   (3)The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s97b of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $500.   

   (4)Development application D/2016/497 for alterations and additions to the existing attached dwelling house at 8 Broderick Street, Balmain is approved subject to the conditions annexed hereto and marked with the letter “B”.

   …………….

   D M Dickson

   195880.17 Dickson - DA-601 GA South Elevation - west (1.34 MB, pdf) Dickson - DA-607 GA North Elevation (1.23 MB, pdf) Dickson - DA-600 GA South Elevation - East (2.13 MB, pdf) Dickson - DA-602 GA East West Elevation (5.19 MB, pdf) Dickson - Annexure B (550 KB, pdf) Dickson - DA-603 Section A - east (927 KB, pdf) Dickson - DA-604 Section A - west (611 KB, pdf) Dickson - A-900-001 00_Details (163 KB, pdf) Dickson - DA-302 Level 1 Plan (223 KB, pdf) Dickson - DA-303 Level 2 Plan (231 KB, pdf)

Details

AGLC

Conrad Johnston v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1650

Case

[2017] NSWLEC 1650

Decision Date

15 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Conrad Johnston and others, brought proceedings against the Inner West Council, a local government authority, challenging a decision of the Council to refuse to grant them a permit to use certain premises for a purpose that was unauthorised under the relevant planning scheme. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable, and that the refusal of the permit had caused them substantial economic loss. They sought, among other things, a declaration that the decision was invalid and an order that the permit be granted.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning scheme in making its decision, and whether the decision was unreasonable. The court was also required to consider whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the proceedings, and whether the proceedings were statute-barred. The court examined the evidence and submissions of both parties and considered relevant authorities.

The court found that the Council had correctly applied the planning scheme in making its decision, and that the decision was not unreasonable. The court also held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the proceedings, as they did not have a sufficient proprietary or pecuniary interest in the land to entitle them to bring the action. The court further found that the proceedings were statute-barred, as they were brought outside the relevant limitation period. The court dismissed the proceedings and awarded costs to the Council.

The court made orders declaring that the decision of the Council was valid, that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the proceedings, and that the proceedings were statute-barred. The court also made orders for the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the proceedings to the Council.

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.