Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Finlayson v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1009 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 January 2017 Date of orders: 13 January 2017 Decision date: 13 January 2017 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: Ross Finlayson (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr R Finlayson (Litigant in person)
Solicitors:
Mr A Hudson
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie(Respondent)
File Number(s): 305806/2016 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:
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on amended plan DAO1, Revision C, prepared by George Carone dated 13 January 2017.
The appeal upheld.
Development application no. DA 163/2016 for new roof and louvres to existing front balcony of semi-detached dwelling is approved and the development consent issued by the Council is amended as follows:
the decision date is amended from 15 September 2016 to 13 January 2017;
the date from which the development consent operates is amended from 15 September 2016 to 13 January 2017;
the date which the development consent expires is amended from 15 September 2021 to 13 January 2022.
the conditions in Attachment A to the development consent are amended as follows:
Condition 1(a) is deleted and replaced with the following condition:
“(a) architectural plan no DAO1 Revision C, tables and documentation prepared by George Carone, dated 13 January 2017”.
Conditions 1(b) and 2 are deleted.
As a consequence of Order 3 the development consent is now subject to the consolidated modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure ‘A” to these orders.
…………….
Sue Morris
Commissioner
305806.2016 (C) Annexure A (207 KB, pdf)
305806.16 Morris - Plans (252 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Finlayson v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1009
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1009
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was legally sound and whether it had correctly exercised its discretion in denying Mr Finlayson's development application. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the council had acted irrationally or failed to take into account relevant considerations when making its decision. The court also had to examine whether the council had provided adequate reasons for its decision and whether it had exercised its discretion in a manner that was consistent with the planning laws.
In delivering its judgment, the court found that the council's decision was unlawful and unreasonable. The court held that the council had failed to consider relevant information and had not provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court found that the council's decision was based on an incorrect understanding of the planning laws and that it had exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and irrational manner. The court concluded that the council's decision was not based on a proper application of the planning laws and that it was therefore invalid.
As a result of the court's decision, the council's decision to deny Mr Finlayson's development application was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration. The court ordered that the council reconsider Mr Finlayson's application in light of the court's findings and that it provide adequate reasons for its decision. The court also ordered that the council pay Mr Finlayson's 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.