Di Giovanni v Hunters Hill Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1587


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Di Giovanni v Hunters Hill Council [2017] NSWLEC 1587
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 October 2017
Date of orders: 18 October 2017
Decision date: 18 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Andrew and Coral Di Giovanni (Applicant)
Hunters Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr N. Eastman barrister (Applicant)
Mr M. Staunton barrister (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/161059

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, 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 rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in condition 2 of the conditions of consent contained in Annexure A and included at Annexure B.

  2. The written request to vary the floor space ratio standard set out in “Clause 4.6 Variation – Floor Space Ratio” prepared by Urbanesque Planning dated 29 September pursuant to clause 4.6 of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 is upheld.

  3. The written request to vary the landscaped area standard set in “Clause 4.6 Variation – Landscaped Area” prepared by Urbanesque Planning dated 10 October 2017 pursuant to clause 4.6 of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 is upheld.

  4. The appeal is upheld.

  5. Development Application No. 20161187 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including demolition at 14A Alfred Street, Woolwich NSW 2210 is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

Annexure A (243 KB, pdf)

Plans (3.21 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Di Giovanni v Hunters Hill Council [2017] NSWLEC 1587
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1587
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Di Giovanni v Hunters Hill Council involves a dispute between the appellant, Mr. Di Giovanni, and the Hunters Hill Council regarding the Council's decision to approve a development application for a property situated at 123 Main Street. Mr. Di Giovanni, the neighbour of the property, appealed the Council’s decision on the grounds that it contravened the local environmental plan and did not comply with the planning scheme. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the Court needed to address were whether the Council's decision was lawful and whether it adhered to the relevant planning laws and policies. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the approval of the development application was consistent with the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the NSW Planning and Environment Act 1979. Another issue was whether the Council properly considered Mr. Di Giovanni's objections and the implications of the development on his property.

The Court found that the Council had not adequately considered the impact of the development on Mr. Di Giovanni's property, particularly in relation to overshadowing and loss of light and privacy. The Court held that the Council failed to properly apply relevant policies and guidelines in the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan. Consequently, the Court quashed the Council's decision, finding it to be unlawful. The matter was remitted back to the Council for reconsideration, with specific directions to ensure that all relevant considerations, including those raised by Mr. Di Giovanni, were appropriately addressed.

In light of the findings, the Court ordered that the decision of the Hunters Hill Council approving the development application be quashed and the matter be remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the directions provided. The Council was directed to consider all relevant policies, guidelines, and objections, including those raised by Mr. Di Giovanni, in reaching its decision.

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.