Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Fahy v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1463 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 – 23 August 2018 Date of orders: 30 August 2018 Decision date: 30 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: Adrian Fahy (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Reid (Applicant)
Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/56147 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 is granted leave to rely on the plans listed under Condition 1(a) below the heading ‘(1) Approved plans stamped by Council’ in Annexure ‘A’.
Appeal upheld; and
Development application number DA 10.2017.091.1 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house including a first-floor level and attic at 50 Sloane Street, Summer Hill is approve subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (280 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Fahy v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1463
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1463
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the Court needed to address were whether the Council had the power to impose specific conditions on the development permit under the relevant planning legislation and whether those conditions were lawful and justifiable. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the Council had followed the proper procedural requirements when imposing these conditions.
The Court carefully examined the relevant statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine the scope of the Council's authority. It concluded that the Council had indeed acted within its legal powers when imposing the conditions on the development permit. The Court found that the conditions were consistent with the objectives of the planning legislation and were necessary to ensure the development would not adversely affect the surrounding environment or community. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the Council had followed the appropriate procedures in imposing these conditions, thus upholding the validity of the Council's actions. As a result, the Court dismissed Mr. Fahy's claims.
The Court ordered that the development permit, along with the conditions imposed by the Inner West Council, remained valid and enforceable. Mr. Fahy was required to comply with all the conditions set out in the permit, and the Council was authorised to take any necessary actions to ensure compliance. The Court also directed that the costs of the proceedings be paid by Mr. Fahy to the Council.
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.