Ganis v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1188


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ganis & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1188
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 7-8 April, 26 April 2016
Date of orders: 23 May 2016
Decision date: 23 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Pearson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION; Deletion and amendment of deferred commencement conditions; design changes; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Frank Ganis and Mary Ganis (Applicants)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Bartier Perry (Applicants)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/151690 (11142 of 2015)
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(2) Modification Application dated 23 October 2015 and to rely upon the following amended plans, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Plan number

Reference

Prepared by

Date

P1316 DA-02 Rev K

Beach Front Floor Plans

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

P1316 DA-03 Rev K

Lower Ground Floor Plans

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

P1316 DA-04 Rev H

Ground Floor Plans

Contempo Architects

19 APR 2016

P1316 DA-05 Rev I

Upper Floor Plans

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

P1316 DA-06 Rev I

Site and Roof Plans

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

P1316 DA-08 Rev I

East and West Elevations

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

P1316 DA-09 Rev I

North elevations

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

P1316 DA-10 Rev I

South elevations

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

P1316 DA-12 Rev I

Sections AA and BB2

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

P1316 DA-16 Rev B

External finishes

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

P1316 DA-20 Rev A

Lower Courtyard Sections

Contempo Architects

29 APR 2016

Job 16-065a LA 01 Rev A

DA Landscape Plan

Taylor Brammer Landscape Architect Pty Ltd

04.05.2016

SY141-046 DA011 Rev A

Drainage Layout

Van der Meer Consulting

August 2014

SY141-046 DA012 Rev A

Catchment Plan

Van der Meer Consulting

August 2014

SY141-046 DA011 Rev C

Drainage Layout

Van der Meer Consulting

04.05.2016

(2) The appeal is upheld.

(3) Section 96(2) Modification Application dated 23 October 2015 to modify Development Consent No DA14/0944 for demolition for swimming pool, alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and boatshed, construction of a new swimming pool and construction of a new garage with storage, entry portico, front fence and gate is determined by approving the modification as set out in Annexure “B”.

(4) As a consequence of order (3) above, Development Consent No 14/0944 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “C”.

…………….

Linda Pearson

Commissioner

151690.16 Pearson Annexure A (6.32 MB, pdf)

151690.16 Pearson_Annexure B (144 KB, pdf)

151690.16 Pearson_Annexure C (164 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Ganis v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1188
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1188
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ganis v Sutherland Shire Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr Ganis, brought the action against the defendant, the Sutherland Shire Council, concerning a dispute over the council's refusal to grant him a building permit for a proposed residential development. Mr Ganis sought a judicial review of the council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and constituted an error of law.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the scope of judicial review in the context of planning decisions and whether the council's decision to deny the building permit was an error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion. The court was required to determine whether the council had properly considered the relevant planning legislation, local planning policies, and the merits of Mr Ganis's proposal. Furthermore, the court had to examine whether the council's decision was so unreasonable as to be outside the range of outcomes open to it under the law.

In its judgment, the court held that the council's decision was indeed unreasonable and constituted an error of law. The court found that the council had failed to properly consider relevant planning policies and had given undue weight to irrelevant factors. The court emphasised that a planning authority must consider all relevant matters and avoid placing undue emphasis on irrelevant considerations. In this case, the council had not adequately justified its decision to deny the permit, leading to the conclusion that the decision was unreasonable. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Sutherland Shire Council to refuse Mr Ganis's building permit be quashed, and the matter be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the Sutherland Shire Council.

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.