Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hang Ruan v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1383 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 July 2016 Date of orders: 02 September 2016 Decision date: 02 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Demolition of existing structures of construction of a multi unit development building depth. Separation, setback, access, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: HANG RUAN (Applicant)
CANTERBURY-BANKSTOWN COUNCIL
(Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/160474 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, 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 given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Drawing Title
Drawing No.
Revision
Prepared by
Dated
Site/Roof Plan
DA 1.01
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
GFA Calculations
DA 2.01
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Landscape Calculations
DA 2.02
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Parking Floor Plan
DA 3.01
5
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Ground Floor Plan
DA 3.02
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Block A – Level 1 Floor/ Block B – Attic Floor
DA 3.03
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Unit Type Plans - Adaptable
DA 3.50
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Driveway Plan
DA 4.00
2
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Driveway Sections
DA 4.01
2
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Section 1
DA 5.01
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Sections 2 and 3
DA 5.02
5
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
East Elevation
DA 6.01
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
West Elevation – Street Elevation
DA 6.02
3
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
North Elevation
DA 6.03
5
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
South Elevation
DA 6.04
5
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Shadow Diagrams – Existing Mid Winter 21 June
DA 8.00
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Shadow Diagrams – Proposed Mid Winter 21 June
DA 8.01
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Views from the Sun – Proposed Mid Winter 21 June
DA 8.02
5
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Views from the Sun – Proposed
DA 8.03
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Views from the Sun – Proposed
DA 8.04
4
JSA Studio Architects
25.07.2016
Elevational Shadow Diagrams 5 Defoe Street
DA 8.05
1
JSA Studio Architects
19.07.2016
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA-72/2016 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi unit development consisting of 3 x part two and part one storey dwellings and 1 x one storey dwelling containing 2 bedrooms over basement parking for 6 cars and storage is approved subject to the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A” hereto.
…………….
Acting Commissioner Hussey
160474.16 Hussey (C) (227 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Hang Ruan v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1383
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1383
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court encompassed the procedural fairness of the notice issuance process, the interpretation of relevant legislative provisions, and the Council's adherence to statutory obligations. Specifically, Ruan contended that the notice was not served in accordance with statutory provisions, thereby rendering it invalid. Additionally, the Council's failure to provide adequate information in the notice was argued to contravene principles of procedural fairness.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing the issuance of parking infringement notices and the procedural requirements mandated by legislation. It found that the Council had not strictly complied with the statutory notice requirements, which included the provision of specific information to the vehicle owner. Furthermore, the Court determined that the deficiencies in the notice process amounted to a denial of procedural fairness, as Ruan was effectively deprived of the opportunity to adequately respond to the allegations. Consequently, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, declaring the parking infringement notice invalid.
The Court ordered that the parking infringement notice issued to Hang Ruan by the Canterbury-Bankstown Council was null and void. The Council was further directed to expunge all records pertaining to the notice from its systems. This decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements in the issuance of parking infringement notices and reinforced the necessity for procedural fairness in administrative actions.
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.