Hafford v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1562


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hafford v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1562
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 October 2018
Date of orders: 22 October 2018
Decision date: 22 October 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: Matthew James Hafford (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
K Fairley, Brock Partners Lawyers (Applicant)
M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/117316
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Matthew James Hafford against the actual refusal by Inner West Council of development application (D/2017/685). The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to a dwelling, including an addition to the side of the house, and associated works, including: new pool; removal of a tree; new sliding gate at the street frontage; and minor landscaping works at 15 Turner Street, Balmain (Lot 204 DP 1110000).

  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. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. D/2017/685 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents:

Plan Reference

Drawn By

Dated

0000 (Cover), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

1100 (Ground), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

1101 (First Floor), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

1102 (Attic), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

1103 (Roof), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

2000 (North West Elevation), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

2001 (North East Elevation), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

2002 (South East Elevation), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

3000 (Section AA), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

3001 (Section BB), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

3002 (Section CC), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

7000 (BASIX Commitments), Rev C

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

BASIX Certificate

Prepared By

Dated

A282140_03

Fearns Studio

2 Oct 2018

  1. The Applicant’s clause 4.6 request, prepared by All About Planning and dated 27 September 2018, for a variation of the Floor Space development standards under Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2011, a copy of which is behind Annexure “B”, is upheld.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. D/2017/547 for ground and first floor alterations and additions to existing residence, and associated works, including new carport at rear, landscaping and tree removal, at 368 Annandale Street, Annandale, be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure “A”.

  1. The Court noted the applicant’s agreement with the respondent to pay costs pursuant to Clause 3.7 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 to pay the respondent’s costs of reassessment of the revised plans in an agreed sum of $2,000.00 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (407 KB, pdf)

Plans (5.14 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Hafford v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1562
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1562
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Hafford, brought proceedings against the Inner West Council, seeking a declaration that a zoning amendment was invalid and that their property was not subject to a planning instrument. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The Haffords contended that the amendment to the zoning of their property from residential to community facilities was invalid due to procedural irregularities. They argued that the council had failed to comply with statutory requirements for public notice and consultation, and that the amendment was therefore void. The council defended the validity of the amendment, asserting that it had followed the necessary processes and that the amendment was properly made.

The court was required to determine whether the council had complied with the statutory requirements for the amendment of the planning instrument. The legal issues included whether the council had provided adequate public notice, whether the consultation process was sufficient, and whether the amendment was validly made. The court examined the statutory provisions and the council's actions in light of these requirements. The Haffords submitted that the council had not provided proper notice and had not adequately consulted with the public, as required by the relevant legislation. The council argued that it had taken all necessary steps to comply with the statutory requirements.

The court found that the council had not provided adequate public notice of the amendment and had not complied with the statutory requirement to consult with the public. The court held that the amendment was therefore invalid. The Haffords' property was not subject to the planning instrument as amended, and the court made a declaration to that effect. The court also found that the council had acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the statutory provisions and had thereby breached its duty to act in accordance with the law. The council's amendment to the zoning of the Haffords' property was declared invalid, and the Haffords' property was found not to be subject to the amended planning instrument.

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.