Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1522 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 – 3 October 2018 Date of orders: 09 October 2018 Decision date: 09 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson 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: Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Other:
S Shneider, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
D Andrews (Director of Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd) (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2018/159786 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant has leave to rely on the following amended plans:
CC02 Site Plan prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018
CC03 Plan LGF prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018
CC04 Plan GF prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018
CC05 Plan FF prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018
CC06 Roof Plan prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018
CC07 North and South Elevations prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018
CC08 East and West Elevations prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018
CC09 Basix and North and South Sections prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 21/08/2018
CC10 Window schedule Part 1 prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 21/08/2018
CC11 Window schedule Part 2 prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 21/08/2018.
The Appeal is upheld.
Modification Application 326/16/2 seeking to modify Development Application 326/26 as follows:
demolition of all existing buildings; and,
amendments to the floor levels of dwelling 1 resulting from the demolition of the remaining portion of existing building; and,
amendments to the floor levels of dwelling 2; and,
reconfiguration of and amendments to the floor plans as detailed in the approved amended plans; and,
associated changes to windows and external doors; and,
removal of full height louvre privacy screens and replacement of same with fixed obscure glass to 1.6m;
is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.
……………………….
Jenny Smtihson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (144 KB, pdf)
Amended Plans (2.97 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1522
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1522
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had acted within its statutory powers when it decided to alter the zoning of the plaintiff's property. The court was required to determine whether the council's actions were consistent with the requirements of the planning legislation, and whether the council had provided adequate reasons for its decision. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the action, and if the relief sought was appropriate in the circumstances.
The court found that the council's decision to alter the zoning of the property was indeed inconsistent with the relevant planning legislation. The council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, and the plaintiff had demonstrated that it had standing to bring the action. The court held that the relief sought by the plaintiff was appropriate, and granted a declaration that the council's decision was invalid. The court also issued an injunction preventing the defendant from implementing the altered zoning controls. The plaintiff was awarded costs of the proceedings.
In summary, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the council's decision to change the zoning of the property was not in accordance with the planning legislation. The court quashed the council's decision and granted the relief sought by the plaintiff, including a declaration and an injunction. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff'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.