Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Craig Day & Katherine Jude v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1398 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 28 July 2017 Date of orders: 28 July 2017 Decision date: 28 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Craig Day (First Applicant)
Katherine Jude (Second Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr D Briggs (Solicitor) (Applicant)
Mr S Turner (Solicitor) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/146756 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:
The Appeal is upheld.
Section 96 application number M/2017/45 lodged with the Respondent on 29 March 2017 to modify Development Consent No. DA/2016/549 for a new first floor addition to the existing dwelling at 64 Evans Street, Rozelle is determined by approving the modifications as set out in “Annexure A”.
As a consequence of order 2(b), Development Consent No. DA/2016/549 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in “Annexure B”.
…………….
Rosemary Martin
Senior Commissioner
146756.17(Appendix A) (153 KB, pdf)
146756.17(Appendix B) (340 KB, pdf)
Amendments
02 August 2017 - Representation altered
- AGLC
- Craig Day and Katherine Jude v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1398
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1398
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was lawful and whether it had taken into account all relevant considerations. The plaintiffs argued that the council had failed to consider the benefits of the wall in protecting their property and had acted irrationally by refusing the application. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was lawful and that the wall would cause harm to the environment and contravene the local environmental plan.
The court found that the council's decision was lawful and that the council had taken into account all relevant considerations. The court held that the council had correctly identified that the wall would cause harm to the environment and that it was not in accordance with the local environmental plan. The court further found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the wall would not cause harm to the environment or that it was necessary for the protection of their property. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application and upheld the council's decision.
The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the council's costs of the proceedings. The court also ordered that the judgment be recorded in the names of the parties and that a copy of the judgment be sent to each party and their legal representatives. The court further ordered that the plaintiffs take all necessary steps to remove the retaining wall within 28 days of 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.