Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Eddie Tran v City of Canada Bay Council [2017] NSWLEC 1264 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 April 2017 Date of orders: 26 May 2017 Decision date: 26 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon 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: Eddie Tran (Applicant)
Canada Bay City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr G Christmas, Apex Planning & Environment Law (Applicant)
Mr P Jackson, Pikes Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/376840 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:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended plans:
Drawing No.
Prepared by
Issue
Date
Site Plan A0.00
Aplus Design Group
11
22 May 2017
Basement A1.00
Aplus Design Group
11
22 May 2017
Ground Floor A1.01
Aplus Design Group
11
22 May 2017
Level 1 A1.02
Aplus Design Group
11
22 May 2017
Level 2 A1.03
Aplus Design Group
11
22 May 2017
Roof Plan A1.04
Aplus Design Group
11
22 May 2017
South Elevation A2.01
Aplus Design Group
9
22 May 2017
North Elevation A2.02
Aplus Design Group
9
22 May 2017
East and West Elevations A2.03
Aplus Design Group
9
22 May 2017
Streetscape Elevations A2.04
Aplus Design Group
10
22 May 2017
Section AA A3.01
Aplus Design Group
9
22 May 2017
Section BB A3.03
Aplus Design Group
6
22 May 2017
Landscape Plan Drawing 893 L-01 C
Site Design + Studios
C
3 May 2017
Landscape Plan Drawing 893 L-02
Site Design + Studios
C
3 May 2017
Stormwater Drainage Plans marked Project No. 16007, Drawings Nos. C1.01, C2.02, C4.01, C2.01, C3.01, C3.02, C4.02 and C5.01
Rafeletos Zanuttini Consulting Engineers
A, D, E
23.06.2011
24.11.2016
BASIX Certificate and Thermal Comfort & Basix Report
Efficient Living
-
18 May 2017
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to DA No. 2016/0279 as amended for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of an attached dual occupancy development with basement parking and storage at Lot 84 DP 3859 known as No. 27 St Georges Crescent, Drummoyne subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Dixon
376840.16 Dixon - Plans (5.08 MB, pdf)
376840.16 Dixon (C) (340 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Eddie Tran v City of Canada Bay Council [2017] NSWLEC 1264
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1264
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of local planning laws, the scope of the council's authority in enforcing these laws, and the procedural fairness owed to the plaintiff. The court needed to assess whether the council's decision was made in accordance with the applicable legal framework and whether proper consideration was given to the plaintiff's rights and interests. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the council's actions were reasonable and justified under the circumstances.
The court concluded that the City of Canada Bay Council's decision to demolish the property was lawful and properly exercised within the scope of its statutory authority. The council had provided sufficient evidence to support the necessity of the demolition for public safety, and the decision was made in accordance with the relevant planning laws. The court found that the council had acted fairly and reasonably, providing the plaintiff with adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The plaintiff's claim for relief was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld.
ORDERS:
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The City of Canada Bay Council's decision to demolish the property is upheld.
3. The City of Canada Bay Council is entitled to its costs of the proceeding.
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.