Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Dimitrios Markakis v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1424 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 7 August 2017 Date of orders: 07 August 2017 Decision date: 07 August 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: Dimitrios Markakis (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr A Markakis (Authorised Agent) (Applicant)
Mr K Webber (Solicitor) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/280657 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 Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purposes of the development application:
Architectural Plans and Documents
Drawing No.
Dated
Prepared By
DA02 Issue C
February 2017
BTP
DA03 Issue C
February 2017
BTP
DA06 Issue C
February 2017
BTP
Accessibility Report
13 February 2017
Howard Moutrie
BCA – Additional Compliance Report (rooms 12 to 17)
15 February 2017
Murrow Consulting
Amended Plan of Management (Rooms 12 to 17)
15 February 2017
Amended Guest Details Form (Rooms 12 to 17)
15 February 2017
Amended Guest Registration Form (Rooms 12 to 17)
15 February 2017
Amended Hotel Rules and Regulations (Rooms 12 to 17)
15 February 2017
The Applicant is to pay the costs thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $5,000 within 28 days.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA 2015/00721 for use of 6 rooms as hotel or motel accommodation, installation of a lift and upgrade of a bathroom at the Lewisham Hotel at 794 Parramatta Road, Lewisham is determined by approving the plans referred to in condition A1 of Annexure “A” and subject to the conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “A”.
…………….
Rosemary Martin
Senior Commissioner
280657.17 (C) (194 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Dimitrios Markakis v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1424
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1424
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful and justified. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and failed to take into account relevant considerations, including the merits of the proposal and the impact on the local community. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the refusal was based on valid and relevant grounds, and that the development would not comply with the relevant planning and zoning laws.
In determining the matter, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions, case law, and the principles of administrative law that govern the exercise of discretionary powers by local councils. The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and assessed whether the respondent had properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the law. After careful consideration, the court found that the respondent had failed to adequately address the merits of the proposal and had not given sufficient weight to relevant considerations. The court concluded that the decision to refuse the development approval was unreasonable and therefore invalid. The court ordered that the respondent's decision be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.
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.