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 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Weiguo Han (First Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Miing Juan Wu (Second Applicant)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr C Gough, Storey and Gough Solicitors (Respondent)
Mr G Hartley, Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2017/110979 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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.
-
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 granted leave to rely on the plans listed under Condition 1 below the heading ‘Approved Plans’ in Annexure ‘A’.
Appeal upheld.
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’.
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.
- AGLC
- Han v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1544
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1544
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.