Cynthia Ann Johnson and Wayne Taylor v North Sydney Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1529


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Cynthia Ann Johnson and Wayne Taylor v North Sydney Council [2017] NSWLEC 1529
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 August 2017
Date of orders: 18 September 2017
Decision date: 18 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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: Cynthia Ann Johnson (Applicant 1)
Wayne Grenvil Taylor (Applicant 2)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr J Schmidt-Liermann, Schmidt-Liermann Pty Ltd (Applicants)
Mr S Kondilios, North Sydney Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/134519
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to file the sketch Plans 1 and 2 and photographs attached thereto at pages 5 to 8 (inclusive) of the sealed s34 Agreement.

  2. That the Appeal is upheld in part.

  3. The order issued by the respondent dated 6 April 2017 for the land identified as Unit 2, 17 Hayes Street, Neutral Bay being further described as Lot 2 in SP13002, the subject of the proceedings is modified in accordance with the Modified Order marked Annexure ‘A’ dated 18 September 2017.

  4. No order as to costs.

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (264 KB, pdf)

Section 34 Agreement (sealed) filed on 18 September 2017 (1.58 MB, pdf)

Amendments

26 September 2017 - Clerical error - Order 1 (paragraph 4) amended to reflect s 34 agreement.

Details
AGLC
Cynthia Ann Johnson and Wayne Taylor v North Sydney Council [2017] NSWLEC 1529
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1529
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal by the plaintiffs, Cynthia Ann Johnson and Wayne Taylor, against the North Sydney Council. The plaintiffs sought to have a decision by the council to refuse their application for development approval overturned. The dispute centred around the council's refusal to grant the plaintiffs permission to construct a carport on their property. The matter was heard and determined by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the North Sydney Council's decision to refuse development consent was valid and lawful. The plaintiffs argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and not based on proper consideration of the relevant planning and zoning laws. They contended that the refusal to grant approval for the carport construction was arbitrary and failed to take into account the practical and economic benefits of the proposed development. The council, on the other hand, maintained that their decision was reasonable and in accordance with the applicable planning legislation and policies.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable legal framework. The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning and zoning laws. The court held that the council had correctly applied the relevant criteria and policies when making the decision, and that the plaintiffs had not established that the decision was flawed or arbitrary. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the council's decision to refuse development consent for the proposed carport.

The court's final orders in this matter were that the appeal by the plaintiffs be dismissed, and that the decision of the North Sydney Council to refuse development approval for the proposed carport construction be upheld. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the council's costs of the appeal.

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.