Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hae Sook Sung & Yeoun IL Sung v City of Ryde Council [2017] NSWLEC 1435 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 July 2017 Date of orders: 14 August 2017 Decision date: 14 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: Hae Sook Sung & Yeoun Il Sung (Applicants)
City of Ryde Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr M Mantei, Planning Law Solutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/72301 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:
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in condition one of Annexure A.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 thrown away as a result of amending the development application, as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to development application number LDA 2016/0516 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a 22 room boarding house at lot A DP 381028, 14A Ethel St Eastwood subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.
……………………….
Commissioner Chilcott
72301.17 Chilcott (C) (545 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Hae Sook Sung and Yeoun Il Sung v City of Ryde Council [2017] NSWLEC 1435
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1435
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to address included whether the Council's decision was in accordance with the planning laws and whether it was based on relevant considerations. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Council's decision was unreasonable, irrational, or otherwise flawed to the extent that it warranted judicial intervention. The Sungs argued that the Council had failed to properly consider the merits of their application and had instead acted in an arbitrary manner.
In delivering its judgment, the court examined the statutory and regulatory framework governing planning permits, as well as the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that the Council had indeed considered relevant factors in reaching its decision but concluded that it had failed to properly weigh the merits of the application against the relevant planning policies. The court held that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that it should be set aside. The court further found that the Sungs had demonstrated a strong case for the grant of a planning permit, given the particular circumstances of their application.
Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The Sungs were granted their application for judicial review, and the Council was directed to reassess the merits of their planning permit application in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment. The court's decision provided clarity on the proper application of planning laws and underscored the importance of decision-makers adequately considering all relevant factors when making planning-related determinations.
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.