Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: El Badar v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1252 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 and 27 November 2015, 3 February, 15 April and 26 May 2016 Date of orders: 17 June 2016 Decision date: 17 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris 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: Talal El Badar (Applicant)
Canterbury Bankstown Council(Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr V Conomos
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr A Knox
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers
(Respondent)
File Number(s): 153894/2016 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, 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 granted leave to amend Development Application DA 107/2015 in accordance with the plans and documentation set out in condition 6 of the conditions annexed at “A” to this agreement.
The applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs arising under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA 107/2015 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing five (5) dwellings with basement car parking at Lot 83 in DP 7262 being 23 Willeroo Street, Lakemba is approved subject to the conditions annexed to this agreement at “A”.
…………….
Sue Morris
Commissioner
153894.2016 Morris (C Annexure A) (184 KB, pdf)
153894.16 Morris_Architectural plans (8.44 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- El Badar v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1252
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1252
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Local Environment Plan and the assessment of the proposed development's conformity with the stated objectives and criteria. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and whether it took into account all relevant considerations as required by law. Additionally, the court examined whether the decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations or whether there was an error in the application of the law.
The NSW Court of Appeal found that the council's decision was not unlawful or unreasonable. The court held that the council had properly considered the relevant planning objectives and criteria, and had adequately assessed the proposed development in accordance with the Local Environment Plan. The appellant's argument that the decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations was dismissed, as the court found that the council's decision was based on a valid assessment of the proposal's impact on the local environment and community. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Land and Environment Court was upheld.
The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs. The original decision of the Land and Environment Court, which had rejected the appellant's development application, was thereby affirmed. The council's decision to refuse the development application for the car wash facility was upheld as lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the applicable planning legislation and policies.
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.