Frangieh v Inner West Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1472


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Frangieh & anor v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1472
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 29 August 2016
Date of orders: 13 September 2016
Decision date: 13 September 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Sonia Frangieh and Joseph Frangieh (Applicants)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P. Jackson solicitor (Applicant)
Mr S. Turner solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):166973 of 2016

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans and documentation as referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’ annexed hereto;

  2. The cl 4.6 variation to cl 4.4(2) of Leichhardt Environmental Plan 2013 prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd is agreed by the parties to be well founded and is upheld;

  3. The appeal is upheld;

  4. Development Application D/2016/126 for the alterations and additions to the existing property is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure ‘A’;

  5. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs arising under s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or as assessed.

…………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner

166973.16 - Annexure A (80.2 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Frangieh v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1472
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1472
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Frangieh v Inner West Council was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Frangieh, appealed against a decision made by the defendant, Inner West Council, regarding the refusal of a development application for a residential apartment building. The primary issue was whether the council had acted lawfully and within its statutory powers when it rejected the application, and whether the decision was unreasonable.

The court had to determine whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning and environmental laws, and if the decision was supported by sufficient evidence. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the council had adhered to the principles of natural justice by providing the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and respond to the issues raised. The central question was whether the council's actions were rational, lawful, and in accordance with the statutory framework governing development approvals.

In its decision, the court found that the council had failed to properly consider several relevant factors and had not provided the applicant with a fair opportunity to respond to these issues. The court held that the decision was unreasonable and not based on lawful considerations. The council's failure to follow proper procedures and to provide adequate reasons for its decision led the court to conclude that the decision was invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The court's final order was to set aside the Inner West Council's decision to refuse the development application and to remit the matter back to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all legal and procedural requirements were properly observed. The council was directed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to make further submissions and to address the issues identified by the court.

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.