Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: George Khouri trading as GM Architects v Wollongong City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1042 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 February 2018 Date of orders: 06 February 2018 Decision date: 06 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: George Khouri T/A GM Architects (Applicant)
Wollongong City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Mr M Sahade, barrister (Applicant)
Mr J Reilly, Wollongong City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/129422 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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 appeal is upheld;
DA-2016/1361 for the demolition of two existing dwellings and ancillary structures and the construction of a ‘shop top housing’ development comprising an eight storey building at Lot 1 DP 913400, Lot 730 DP 1141182 and Lot 302 DP 1084476, otherwise known as 17-19 Loftus Street Wollongong is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”; and
Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Council’s costs thrown away as a result of the amended application, being the plans and information supplied to Council after 27 October 2017, as agreed or assessed.
……………………….
Commissioner Smithson
Annexure A (364 KB, pdf)
Plans (14.9 MB, pdf)
Plans_REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN E (5.55 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- George Khouri trading as GM Architects v Wollongong City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1042
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1042
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to decide included the interpretation of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan, the validity of the conditions imposed by the council, and whether the council's decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Mr. Khouri argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and did not properly consider the statutory requirements and the merits of his development application. The council, on the other hand, contended that its decision was lawful and that it had followed the correct procedures and considerations.
The court found that the council's decision was flawed in its interpretation of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan. The court held that the council had not properly considered the statutory requirements and had imposed conditions that were not supported by the relevant legislation. The court concluded that the council's decision was unreasonable and did not adhere to the statutory provisions. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles.
The court ordered that the decision of the Wollongong City Council be quashed and that the matter be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles. The court also ordered that each party bear their own costs of the proceedings.
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.