Han v Cumberland Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1544


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Han & Anor v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1544
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 August 2017, 5,16 September 2017
Date of orders: 28 September 2017
Decision date: 28 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing buildings and construction of 22 x 2 storey townhouses; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Weiguo Han (First Applicant)
Miing Juan Wu (Second Applicant)

Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Solicitors:
Mr G Hartley, Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)

Mr C Gough, Storey and Gough Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/110979
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA-247/2015 for the demolition of the existing buildings, tree removal, construction of 22 x 2 storey townhouses over basement parking, strata subdivision, landscaping & associated stormwater works at 159-165 John Street, Lidcombe.

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

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the plans listed under Condition 1 below the heading ‘Approved Plans’ in Annexure ‘A’.

  2. Appeal upheld.

  3. Development application number DA-247/2015 for demolition of the existing buildings, tree removal, construction of 22 x 2 storey townhouses over basement parking, strata subdivision, landscaping & associated stormwater works is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’.

  4. The applicant is to pay $5,000.00 in full and final satisfaction of all costs thrown away as a result of amending plans under s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

____________

G Brown

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C) (573 KB, pdf)

Amendments

28 September 2017 - Clerical error.

Details
AGLC
Han v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1544
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1544
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Han v Cumberland Council was a matter heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved the plaintiff, Han, and the defendant, Cumberland Council, regarding the legality of certain development permits issued by the Council. Han challenged the permits, claiming they were unlawful and that the Council had not complied with relevant planning laws and environmental regulations.

The court had to determine several legal issues, primarily whether the Council had followed the correct procedures in issuing the permits and whether those permits were consistent with the applicable planning schemes and environmental laws. Another significant issue was whether Han had standing to bring the case, given the delay in bringing the action.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the procedural correctness of the permit issuance and compliance with legal requirements. The court concluded that the Council had indeed followed the necessary procedures and that the permits were valid. Additionally, the court found that Han had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for the delay in bringing the action, thereby lacking the standing to challenge the permits.

As a result, the court dismissed Han's case. The permits issued by the Cumberland Council were upheld as lawful, and the Council was not required to take any further action regarding the development permits. The final orders of the court reflected this outcome, with Han's case being dismissed and no further action required by the Council.

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.