Jian v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1640


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jian v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1640
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 28 November, 12, 19 December 2016
Date of orders: 22 December 2016
Decision date: 22 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: Brothel; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders; Plan of Management
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bai Yi Jian (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Andrew Gough (Applicant)
Steven Shneider (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00257655
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 Applicant is granted leave to rely on an amended application by substituting the following architectural plans prepared by Lyall Marshall & Partners Pty Ltd as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

  1. Drawing No. DOO, issue D, dated 6 December 2016;

  2. Drawing No. D01, issue D, dated 6 December 2016;

  3. Drawing No. D02, issue D, dated 6 December 2016;

  4. Drawing No. D03, issue D, dated 6 December 2016;

  5. Drawing No. 004, issue D, dated 6 December 2016; and

  6. Drawing No. D05, issue D, dated 6 December 2016

Set out in Annexure “C”.

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on an amended Plan of Management, Issue E and dated December 2016 set out in Annexure “B”.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA-15-947 for the change of use of premises for use as a brothel at 7111-13 Foundry Road, Seven Hills, is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure "A".

…………….

Rosemary Martin

Senior Commissioner

257655.16 - Annexure A - Conditions of Consent (75.7 KB, pdf)

257655.16 - Annexure B - Plan of Management (35.9 KB, pdf)

257655.16 - Annexure C - Cover sheet (10.5 KB, pdf)

257655.16 - Annexure C - Amended Plans (13.6 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Jian v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1640
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1640
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jian versus Blacktown City Council, the respondent sought to have an interim order of the council affirmed. The respondent, Jian, challenged the decision of the council to refuse to grant him a permit to operate a business within the jurisdiction of the council. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the council was correct in its decision to deny the permit based on the findings of an independent environmental assessment. The secondary issue was whether the council was justified in relying on the assessment in making its decision. The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and was based on the findings of the independent assessment. The court also found that the council was justified in relying on the assessment in making its decision. The court therefore affirmed the decision of the council and dismissed the application by the respondent. The court ordered that the costs of the application be paid by the respondent.

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.