Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Fitzgerald v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1283 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 2 June 2017 Date of orders: 05 June 2017 Decision date: 05 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of a double garage with attic studio; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Paul Fitzgerald (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr M. Jaku, Jaku Legal (Applicant)
Mr J. Strati, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/83257 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application D/2017/18 for the construction of a double garage with attic studio above on Lot 29 in DP 666695, known as 12 Reuss Street, Birchgrove.
-
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 granted leave to rely upon amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Consent is granted to Development Application D/2017/18 for the construction of a double garage with attic studio above on Lot 29 in DP 666695, known as 12 Reuss Street, Birchgrove, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”.
The Applicant’s clause 4.6 submissions in relation to the development standards pursuant to clauses 4.3A(3)(a), 4.3A(3)(b) and 4.4 of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 are considered acceptable.
…………….
G Brown
Commissioner of the Court
82357.17 (C) (394 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Fitzgerald v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1283
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1283
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had correctly followed the statutory procedures in approving the development application and whether the decision to approve the development was lawful under the planning legislation. The court also needed to determine if the council's actions constituted an unjustifiable exercise of power or if there was a material error of law on the face of the record.
In resolving the matter, the court examined the statutory framework governing development applications and the council's procedural adherence to these requirements. The court found that the council had indeed followed the required procedures, and the approval was made in accordance with the relevant planning legislation. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the council's decision-making process was flawed or that there was a material error of law. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for a declaration and injunction was dismissed.
The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding. The order emphasised that the council's decision was lawful and that the plaintiff had not established any grounds for the court to intervene. This decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance and the limited scope for judicial review in planning matters, unless substantial procedural errors or material errors of law are evident.
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.