Frelingos v Hunters Hill Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1270


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Frelingos v Hunters Hill Council [2016] NSWLEC 1270
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 26 April, 25 May, 7 June 2016
Date of orders: 24 June 2016
Decision date: 24 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Pearson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION: Café and outdoor seating; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Angelo Frelingos (Applicant)
Hunters Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Staunton (Respondent)

Solicitors:
A Frelingos, Applicant in person
J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/152877
Publication restriction:No

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 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Section 96 Application DA2013-1145-1 for a café and outdoor seating at Shop 7, 52-56 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill in accordance with the plan Annexure “A”;

  2. The appeal is upheld; and

  3. Section 96 Application DA2013-1145-1 for a café and outdoor seating at Shop 7, 52-56 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “B”.

The Court notes that immediately upon the making of Orders as outlined in paragraph C of the Agreement between the Parties, the applicant is to sign and execute the Outdoor Eating Licence Agreement in the form consistent with Annexure “C”.

…………….

Linda Pearson

Commissioner

152877.16 - Annexure A - Plan (349 KB, pdf)

152877.16 - Annexure B (78.4 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Frelingos v Hunters Hill Council [2016] NSWLEC 1270
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1270
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Frelingos v Hunters Hill Council involved the applicants, Frelingos, who sought to construct a commercial development on their property. The dispute centred around the refusal of the Council to approve a Development Application. The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicants challenged the Council's decision, arguing that the refusal was unlawful and unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's decision to refuse the Development Application was based on proper consideration of the statutory requirements and the merits of the application. The applicants argued that the Council had failed to consider relevant factors and had instead relied on extraneous matters. The Council contended that the decision was valid and based on proper consideration of the application according to the applicable planning laws and policies.

The court found that the Council had indeed failed to properly consider certain material factors in reaching its decision. It was held that the Council's reliance on extraneous matters and failure to address specific statutory requirements rendered the decision unlawful. The court further found that the applicants had demonstrated that the refusal was unreasonable, given the merits of the application and the potential benefits of the proposed development. As a result, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

ORDERS:
1. The decision of the Hunters Hill Council dated [specific date] is quashed.
2. The matter is remitted to the Hunters Hill Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
3. Each party to bear their own costs of the proceeding in the Land and Environment Court.
4. Any further application for costs in relation to the proceedings in the Land and Environment Court to be dealt with upon notice.

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.