John Drivas v City of Canada Bay Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1724


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: John Drivas v City of Canada Bay Council [2017] NSWLEC 1724
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 15 December 2017
Date of orders: 15 December 2017
Decision date: 15 December 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: John Drivas (Applicant)
City of Canada Bay Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr D Tyrell, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr T Bush, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/139965
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 amend their development application in accordance with the plans referred to in Condition DAGCA01 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The applicant is to pay the respondents costs pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. 2016/0438 for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a 4 storey mixed use development comprising a ground floor retail/commercial space with associated car parking and 11 residential apartments is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

J Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C) (402 KB, pdf)

Plans (10.3 MB, pdf)

Amendments

15 December 2017 - Judgment amended to include plans as an attachment.

Details
AGLC
John Drivas v City of Canada Bay Council [2017] NSWLEC 1724
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1724
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of John Drivas versus City of Canada Bay Council came before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Mr. John Drivas, challenged a decision by the defendant, the City of Canada Bay Council, regarding the approval of a development application. Mr. Drivas sought to appeal the council's refusal to grant him a development approval for a proposed structure on his property, which he argued was in accordance with the local planning laws and regulations.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant planning and environmental laws, specifically focusing on whether the council had acted within its legal powers and followed proper procedures in denying the development application. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the council's decision was unreasonable or based on improper considerations.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously examined the council's decision-making process and the evidence provided. It found that the council had failed to adequately address certain key aspects of Mr. Drivas' application, particularly in relation to the environmental impact of the proposed development. The court held that the council's decision was flawed as it did not properly consider all relevant factors and was therefore unreasonable. Consequently, the court set aside the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all necessary factors were duly taken into account.

The final orders of the court mandated that the City of Canada Bay Council review Mr. Drivas' development application afresh, ensuring compliance with all applicable planning laws and proper consideration of environmental impacts. The council was instructed to provide Mr. Drivas with an opportunity to respond to any new issues that might be raised during the reconsideration process.

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.