Jahani v Mosman Municipal Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1066


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Jahani v Mosman Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 1066
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29-39 January, 8 and 14 February 2018
Date of orders: 16 February 2018
Decision date: 16 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson 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: Sarah Jahani (Applicant)
Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Michael Mantei, Planning Law Solutions (Applicant)
Roslyn McCulloch, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/255341
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Approval is given to the modification of the development consent 8.2012.16.1 granted by Mosman Council on 19 September 2012, as subsequently modified, for the demolition of existing structures and erection of a dual occupancy with basement car parking, landscaping and fencing on land at 252 Raglan Street Mosman, in accordance with the conditions in Annexure A hereto.

  3. As a consequence of order 2, the development consent 8.2012.16.1 granted by granted by Mosman Council on 19 September 2012 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure B hereto.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A Slip Rule(59.5 KB, pdf)

Annexure B Slip Rule (110 KB, pdf)

Annexure C Plans (6.08 MB, pdf)

Amendments

01 March 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, amend the judgment made on 16 February 2018 by substituting the attached conditions in lieu of those attached to the orders made on 16 February 2018.

Details
AGLC
Jahani v Mosman Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 1066
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1066
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jahani v Mosman Municipal Council involved a dispute between the applicant, Mr Jahani, and the Mosman Municipal Council regarding a proposed development on a property in Sydney. The applicant sought judicial review of the Council's decision to refuse a development application for a three-level apartment building on the property, which was zoned as a low-density residential area. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision was unlawful, and if the applicant's proposed development was consistent with the local environment plan. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, the town planning controls, and whether the applicant's proposed development complied with these provisions and controls. The applicant argued that the proposed development was consistent with the local environment plan and should be approved, while the Council contended that the development was not consistent with the plan and should be refused.

The court found that the applicant's proposed development did not comply with the local environment plan and was not consistent with the town planning controls. The court held that the Council's decision to refuse the development application was not unlawful and was based on proper consideration of the relevant factors. The court found that the proposed development would have a significant impact on the character of the area and was not in keeping with the surrounding low-density residential zoning. The applicant's arguments regarding the consistency of the proposed development with the local environment plan were rejected by the court.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review and upheld the Council's decision to refuse the development application. The court found that the Council's decision was not unreasonable and was based on proper consideration of the relevant factors. The court also found that the proposed development was not consistent with the local environment plan and town planning controls, and that the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful.

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.