Hae Sook Sung and Yeoun Il Sung v City of Ryde Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1435


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

  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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in condition one of Annexure A.

  2. 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.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. 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)

Details
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 case of Hae Sook Sung and Yeoun Il Sung versus City of Ryde Council was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Sungs, a married couple, sought to challenge a decision made by the City of Ryde Council regarding a planning permit. The dispute centred around the Council's refusal to grant the Sungs a permit for a proposed alteration to their property, specifically a change in the use of a residential building. The Sungs argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, and based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant planning laws and policies.

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.