Darren John Finlayson v Bayside Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1101


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Darren John Finlayson v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1101
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 January, 7 and 20 February 2017
Date of orders: 01 March 2017
Decision date: 01 March 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
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Darren John Finlayson (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation: V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/338103
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 to leave to amend its application to rely on the plans and documents referred to in condition 1 of Annexure A.

  2. The applicant is to pay Council's costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $3,000.00 within 28 days.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Approval is granted to Development Application No. 16/74 for torrens title subdivision and construction of two semi-detached two storey dwelling houses at 9 Picton Street, Mascot.

…………….

Rosemary Martin

Senior Commissioner

338103.16 Annexure A (C) (75.3 KB, pdf)

338103.16 Plans (7.05 MB, pdf)

Amendments

01 March 2017 - Hearing date on cover sheet - added "Conciliation conference on..."

Details
AGLC
Darren John Finlayson v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1101
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Darren John Finlayson v Bayside Council was before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Darren Finlayson, contested a decision made by Bayside Council regarding the denial of his application for a development approval. Finlayson sought to develop a property into a commercial establishment, which the council rejected on grounds related to environmental impact and zoning regulations. The plaintiff appealed this decision, arguing that the council had erred in its interpretation of the relevant planning laws and environmental considerations.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was lawful, rational, and based on appropriate considerations. It had to examine whether the council properly assessed the environmental impact and adhered to the provisions of the relevant planning instruments. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the council's decision was influenced by any procedural errors or whether it was made without regard to material considerations.

The court found that the council's decision was not flawed. It held that the council had correctly interpreted the relevant planning laws and had properly assessed the environmental impact of the proposed development. The court found that the council had followed the correct procedures and had considered all relevant factors. The appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld. The court concluded that the council had acted within its statutory powers and that the decision was both lawful and rational.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The decision of Bayside Council is upheld.
3. Costs of the appeal to be borne by the plaintiff.

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.