Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Farag v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1244 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 April 2016 Date of orders: 15 June 2016 Decision date: 15 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; Mixed-use development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Hend Farag (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant: Mr V Conomos (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Respondent: Mr C Drury (Respondent)
Applicant: Conomos Legal
Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
File Number(s): 152431 of 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 given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:
Drawing DA1050 Issue C dated 23/5/2016
Drawing DA1051 Issue C dated 23/5/2016
Drawing DA1052 Issue C dated 23/5/2016
Drawing 2414CD dated 25/02/2015
Drawing DA1150 Issue C dated 23/5/2016
Drawing DA1200 Issue B dated 14/4/2016
Drawing DA1201 Issue B dated 14/4/2016
Drawing DA1202 Issue B dated 14/4/2016
Drawing DA1203 Issue B dated 14/4/2016
Drawing DA1204 Issue B dated 14/4/2016
Drawing DA1206 Issue C dated 23/5/2016
Drawing DA1500 Issue C dated 23/5/2016
Drawing DA1501 Issue C dated 23/5/2016
Drawing DA1701 Issue C dated 23/5/2016
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed in the amount of $10,000 payable within 28 days of the date of these orders.
The appeal is upheld.
The amended development application APPR/1275/2015 seeking approval for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey mixed use development comprising 20 residential units and 1 commercial unit with 2 levels of basement car-parking is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’.
______________________________
Judy Fakes
Commissioner of the Court
152431.16 Annexure A - conditions (273 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Farag v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1244
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1244
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to deny the planning application was lawful and whether it had properly considered the statutory requirements and relevant policies. The court was tasked with reviewing the decision-making process of the council to determine if it was rational, reasonable, and based on proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria and evidence.
The court examined the council's decision-making process and found that the council had failed to adequately consider the impact of the proposed medical centre on the local community and the surrounding environment. The court held that the council's decision was not based on a proper consideration of the statutory criteria and relevant policies, and therefore, the decision was unlawful. The court also found that the council had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, which was necessary for the plaintiff to effectively challenge the decision.
Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision to deny the planning application. The matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration, with directions to properly consider the statutory criteria and relevant policies, and to provide clear and adequate reasons for any future decision. The court's decision highlights the importance of local councils adhering to statutory requirements and providing transparent and reasoned decisions in their planning processes.
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.