Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Domenic A Mariani v Hornsby Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1368 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 July 2017 Date of orders: 14 July 2017 Decision date: 14 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of a dwelling house with swimming pool and landscaping works; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Domenic A Mariani (Applicant)
Hornsby Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/67647 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA/873/2016 for the construction of a dwelling house with swimming pool and landscaping works at 210A and 212 Quarter Sessions Road, Westleigh.
-
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 purpose of the development application:
Plan No.
Description
Prepared by
Revision
Dated:
C0359-DA1
Site Plan
Intercapital Consultants
E
6 July 2017
C0359-DA2
Ground Floor Plan
Intercapital Consultants
E
6 July 2017
C0359-DA3
First Floor Plan
Intercapital Consultants
D
6 July 2017
C0359-DA4
Lower Ground & Basement
Intercapital Consultants
D
6 July 2017
C0359-DA5
Roof Plan
Intercapital Consultants
E
6 July 2017
C0359-DA6
Elevations North & South
Intercapital Consultants
E
6 July 2017
C0359-DA7
Elevations Front & Rear
Intercapital Consultants
E
6 July 2017
C0359-DA8
Sections
Intercapital Consultants
E
6 July 2017
C0359-DA13
Colour Schedule
Intercapital Consultants
D
6 July 2017
INT05-DD-100
Landscape Package
SYM Studio
E
7 July 2017
INT05-DD-101
Landscape Plan
SYM Studio
E
7 July 2017
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA/873/2016 for the construction of a dwelling house with swimming pool and landscaping works on the land at 210A and 212 Quarter Sessions Road, Westleigh subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner G Brown
67647.17 Brown (C) (312 KB, pdf)
Amendments
19 July 2017 - Conditions updated
- AGLC
- Domenic a Mariani v Hornsby Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1368
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1368
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and policies, and whether the decision was supported by evidence and proper reasons. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the term "minor development" as defined in the relevant planning legislation and its application to the proposed rear extension. The court also examined whether the council had appropriately exercised its discretion in denying the application, taking into account the specific circumstances of the site and the character of the neighbourhood.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the council's decision was not unreasonable. The decision was based on a proper application of the planning laws and was supported by evidence and reasons. The court found that the proposed rear extension did not meet the criteria for a minor development as defined in the Hornsby Local Environment Plan 2015. Furthermore, the council had appropriately exercised its discretion in denying the application, considering the impact on the character of the neighbourhood and the overall consistency with the planning scheme. The appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld. The court ordered that the costs of the appeal be borne by the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.