Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Huynh v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1538 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 September 2018 Date of orders: 10 October 2018 Decision date: 10 October 2018 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: Van Huynh (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/72646 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 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 amend Development Application No. DA201700551 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:
Plan, Revision and Issue No.
Plan Name/ Certificate
Type
Date Issued
Prepared by
DA-02 Revision E
Ground Floor Plan
26.9.2018
Fortey + Grant Architecture
DA-03 Revision E
First Floor Plan
26.9.2018
Fortey + Grant Architecture
DA-04 Revision E
Roof Plan
26.9.2018
Fortey + Grant Architecture
DA-05 Revision E
East & West Elevations
26.9.2018
Fortey + Grant Architecture
DA-06 Revision E
North & South Elevations
26.9.2018
Fortey + Grant Architecture
DA-07 Revision E
Sections
26.9.2018
Fortey + Grant Architecture
DA-08 Revision E
Schedule of Colours and Finishes
26.9.2018
Fortey + Grant Architecture
DA-09 Revision E
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
26.9.2018
Fortey + Grant Architecture
DA-11 Revision E
Subdivision and Calculations
26.9.2018
Fortey + Grant Architecture
L01 E
Landscape Plan
17.9.2018
Hortus Design
Basix Certificate No. 867494M_02
Proposed Lot 122
27.9.2018
Planning Approvals
Basix Certificate No. 867494M_02
Proposed Lot 122A
27.9.2018
Planning Approvals
The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $10,700 GST exclusive in full and final payment within 28 days.
The Applicant’s cl4.6 written request to vary the development control for FSR set out in Clause 4.4 of the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 is upheld.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA201700551 to demolish the existing single storey dwelling, subdivision of land into 2 Torrens Title allotments, construct a new 2 storey dwelling house on each allotment at 124 Victoria Street, Dulwich Hill be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure ‘B’.
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (Plans)
Annexure B (C)
Amendments
15 October 2018 - Upload correct judgment with amendments.
- AGLC
- Huynh v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1538
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1538
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair, and whether there was any error in the application of the planning laws and policies. The Court had to consider the statutory framework governing development applications, the Local Environment Plan, and the procedural fairness principles that applied to the decision-making process.
The Court found that the Council's decision was indeed unreasonable and not in accordance with the planning laws and policies. The Court held that the Council had failed to properly consider a key policy and had made an error in its assessment of the application. Furthermore, the Court found that the decision-making process was flawed due to a failure to provide adequate reasons for the decision, which breached the principles of procedural fairness. Consequently, the Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
ORDERS:
The Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The Council was required to properly consider the relevant planning policies and provide adequate reasons for its decision.
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.