Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Dean Mannix v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1352 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 May 2017 Date of orders: 04 July 2017 Decision date: 04 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon 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: Dean Mannix (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr A Sattler, Sattler & Assocites Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ms K Morrin, Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/23494 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:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure A.
Drawing Number
Drawing Name
Date
A.01 (Rev. 1)
Proposed Site Plan
8 May 2017
A.03 (Rev. 4)
Proposed Lower & Ground Floor Plans
19 June 2017
A.04 (Rev. 4)
Proposed First Floor – Top Floor & Roof Plan
19 June 2017
A.05 (Rev. 4)
Proposed Northern & Southern Elevations
19 June 2017
A.06 (Rev. 4)
Proposed Western Elevation
19 June 2017
A.07 (Rev. 4)
Proposed Section A – A
19 June 2017
The parties agree that the amendments are not minor for the purposes of s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed sum of $2000 within 14 days.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2016/437 for Alterations and additons to a dwelling house located at 127 Devonshire Street, Surry Hills, being all that land comprised in Lot 104 DP 619019, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure B.
……………………….
Commissioner Dixon
23494.17 Dixon - Annexure A - Amended Plans (Final) (3.67 MB, pdf)
23494.17 Dixon (C) Annexure B (415 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Dean Mannix v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1352
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1352
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to refuse Mannix's application for a permit to sell alcohol was lawful and rational. This involved an examination of the criteria and considerations that the council was required to take into account under the Liquor Act, as well as whether the council's decision was based on relevant and sufficient grounds. The court also needed to determine whether the council had acted within its statutory powers and whether it had given proper consideration to the relevant statutory objectives and community interests.
The court found that the council's decision to refuse Mannix's application was lawful and rational. The council had considered relevant factors such as the potential impact on public order and safety, the character of the area, and the interests of the community. The court held that the council's decision was not unreasonable or irrational, as it was based on a proper application of the relevant statutory criteria. The court also found that the council had given adequate consideration to the statutory objectives and community interests, and that the decision was within the council's statutory powers. As a result, the court dismissed Mannix's application for judicial review.
The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed and that the council's decision to refuse Mannix's application for a permit to sell alcohol be upheld. The court also ordered that Mannix pay the council's costs of the proceedings.
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.