Gardiner v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1375


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gardiner v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1375
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 July 2018
Date of orders: 23 July 2018
Decision date: 23 July 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: John Gardiner (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Dr J Smith (Respondent)

Solicitors:
S Kondilios, Hall & Wilcox (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/76089
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Mr Gardiner against the actual refusal of Development Application D/2017/507 by Inner West Council, for subdivision of the existing land into two lots and construction of a new two storey dwelling at 136 Darling Street, Balmain East NSW 2041.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to rely upon amended plans as set out in Condition 1 of Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application No. D/2017/507 (as amended) for subdivision of the existing land into two lots and construction of a new two storey dwelling at Lot 101 DP 1042416 being the land known as 136 Darling Street, Balmain East NSW 2041 is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A

Plans (4.08 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Gardiner v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1375
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1375
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between a local council and a resident over the construction of a verandah. The resident, Mr. Gardiner, had applied for approval to construct a verandah at his property and was subsequently issued a notice of refusal by the council, which was the respondent in this case. The council's decision was contested by Mr. Gardiner, leading to a judicial review of the council's actions. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over disputes involving local councils and planning approvals.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had acted lawfully and reasonably in refusing the verandah application. The court had to determine if the council's decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislation, planning instruments, and applicable policies. It also had to consider whether the decision was unreasonable, as defined by the relevant statutory provisions. The court's task was to examine the evidence presented, including submissions from both parties, and apply the appropriate legal standards to decide if the council's decision was justified.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse the verandah application was not unreasonable and was made in accordance with the relevant planning instruments and policies. The evidence showed that the proposed verandah did not comply with several key provisions of the local planning instrument, including setbacks and height restrictions. The council had provided detailed reasons for its decision, which were supported by the evidence and applicable policies. The court concluded that the council had acted within its powers and had not made an error of law or an unreasonable decision. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. Gardiner's application for judicial review.

The final order of the court was that Mr. Gardiner's application for judicial review be dismissed. The court found that the council's decision to refuse the verandah application was lawful and reasonable. The court did not grant any relief to Mr. Gardiner and confirmed the council's decision as valid. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to planning laws and the council's authority in making decisions regarding property developments.

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.