Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Filmer Architects Pty Limited v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1171 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 & 31 March 2017 Date of orders: 03 April 2017 Decision date: 03 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1) against refusal of application for new boundary fence - heritage conservation area - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties- orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Filmer Architects Pty Limited (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr M Driscoll, BCP Lawyers & Consultants (Applicant)
Mr S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/291715 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the refusal of an modification application. The application proposes the retention of a solid brick boundary fence, on the Kingston Street frontage of 10 Crescent Street Haberfield, in lieu of the timber fence originally approved by Council.
-
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 purposes of the development application:
Architectural Plans and Documents
Drawing No.
Dated
Prepared By
DA02 Revision F
29 March 2017
Filmer Architects Pty Limited
The appeal is upheld.
Section 96 modification application DA10.2013.206.2 is approved to modify Development Consent DA10.2013.206.1 (the development consent) as follows:
Amend Condition A(1) to read as follows:
A(1) Approved plans stamped by Council
The development must be carried out only in accordance with the plans and specifications set out on drawing numbers:-
DA00 Rev C 25 October 2013
DA01 Rev B 26 September 2013
DA02 Rev F 27 March 2017
DA03 Rev B 26 September 2013
DA04 Rev B 26 September 2013
and any supporting documentation received with the application, except as amended by the conditions specified hereunder.
Insert Condition B(1) as follows:
B(1) Fence return
The fence return between the Kingston Street boundary and the side of the house adjacent to the front fence is to be of the same height and construction as the fence on the Kingston Street boundary and is to be in accordance with condition H4.
Insert Condition G(2) as follows:
G(2) As built survey
A survey is to be provided to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Services, Ashfield confirming the location of all piers, gates and the timber fence on and near the Kingston Street boundary prior to the issue of an occupation certificate. The timber paling fence is not to encroach on Council’s road reserve.
Insert condition G(3) as follows:
G(3) Pool safety fencing
The boundary fence is not approved as a pool safety barrier. A pool safety barrier is to be installed and certification as to the adequacy of this pool safety barrier is to be provided to the PCA prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.
Insert Condition H(4) as follows:
H(4) Boundary fence
The fence timbers including all posts, rails, and trim shall not be painted. The fence timbers will either remain untreated natural timber or be stained a mid-to-dark grey to resemble unpainted, weathered hardwood. The existing steel gate posts shall be painted to match the fence timbers. The gates (vehicle gates and side entrance gate) are to be painted in the dark trim colour of the house (dark red, dark green, dark brown or dark grey).
As a consequence of Order 2(d) the development consent is now subject to the consolidated modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “A” to these orders.
…………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
291715.16 Dickson (C) (244 KB, pdf)
291715.16 Dickson - Plans (229 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Filmer Architects Pty Limited v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1171
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1171
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had acted lawfully and rationally in refusing the development application, and if the appellant's rights under the Planning Act 2016 (NSW) had been violated. The court was required to determine if the respondent's decision was based on relevant considerations, if it was open to the respondent to refuse the application based on the grounds provided, and if the decision was reasonable in the circumstances.
The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and considered the relevant planning laws and policies. The court found that the respondent's decision was based on relevant considerations and was open to the respondent based on the grounds provided. The court held that the respondent had exercised its discretion lawfully and reasonably, and that the appellant's rights under the Planning Act had not been violated. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the respondent's decision to refuse the development application.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The court determined that the respondent's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the relevant planning laws and policies. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
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.