Dimitrios Markakis v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1424


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

  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 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

  1. 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.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. 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)

Details
AGLC
Dimitrios Markakis v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1424
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1424
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case of Dimitrios Markakis v Inner West Council were the applicant, Dimitrios Markakis, and the respondent, the Inner West Council. The dispute arose from a decision by the respondent to refuse the applicant’s application for a Development Approval concerning a proposed commercial development on land owned by the applicant. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

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.