Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Giovanni Cirilllo v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1672 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 September 2017 Date of orders: 27 November 2017 Decision date: 27 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson 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 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Giovanni Cirilllo (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/ 148104 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 Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:
Drawing Number
Drawing Name
Date
A-DA-110-001, rev 13
Basement & Ground
13 November 2017
A-DA-110-002, rev 13
Level 1 & Level 2
13 November 2017
A-DA-110-003, rev 13
Level 3 & Roof
13 November 2017
A-DA-210-001, rev 13
All Elevations
13 November 2017
A-DA-310-001, rev 13
Cross Section
13 November 2017
A-DA-310-002, rev 13
Details
13 November 2017
The appeal is upheld.
The justification to vary the height of buildings development standard under clause 4.3 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 set out in “Justification under Clause 4.6 of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 – Exceptions to Development Standards” dated September 2016 and prepared by Planning Lab is accepted.
Development application D/2016/1636 lodged on 23 November 2016 is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000 to be paid within 28 days of the making of this order
……………………….
Commissioner D Dickson
148104.17 Annexure A (C) (386 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Giovanni Cirilllo v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1672
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1672
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to refuse the applicant's application for a liquor licence was lawful and reasonable. The applicant contended that the council had failed to consider relevant factors, such as the suitability of the premises and the potential impact on the local community. The council argued that it had properly exercised its discretion and that the decision was based on the need to protect the welfare of the community.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Perram examined the principles of administrative law that apply to decisions made under the Liquor Act. The court held that the council's decision was not unreasonable and was supported by relevant considerations. The applicant's argument that the council had failed to consider relevant factors was rejected, as the record demonstrated that the council had thoroughly assessed the application and had properly exercised its discretion. The court also found that the council's decision was not tainted by any procedural irregularities or errors of law.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the applicant's claim for judicial review. The orders of the court were that the application for review be dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant to the 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.