Jones v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1477


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1477
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 September 2017
Date of orders: 01 September 2017
Decision date: 01 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – additional level to townhouse - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Glen Jones (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr W Soon (Applicant)

Solicitor:
Mr M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)

Agent:
Mr R Creighton, Australian Town Planning (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2017/233982
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 in respect of the property known as 3 Simmons St, Balmain or Lot 2 SP 11609, is upheld.

  2. Development application with the Council’s reference D/2016/465 for the addition of a level to an existing townhouse is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A” hereto.

……………………….

Commissioner Gray

233982.17 Gray (C) (329 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Jones v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1477
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1477
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jones v Inner West Council, the plaintiff, Mr. Jones, brought an action against the Inner West Council, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute revolved around the defendant's decision to deny a development application submitted by the plaintiff. The application sought permission to construct a commercial building on a property owned by Mr. Jones. The plaintiff argued that the Council's decision was unlawful and that the refusal to grant development approval was arbitrary and capricious.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and whether the Council had exercised its discretion in accordance with the relevant statutory framework. In particular, the court had to determine whether the Council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations, failed to take into account relevant considerations, or was otherwise irrational. Additionally, the court examined whether the Council had provided adequate reasons for its decision, as required by statute.

The court found that the Council's decision to refuse the development application was indeed unlawful. The decision was based on irrelevant considerations and failed to take into account several relevant factors. The Council had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, which was insufficient under the statutory requirements. The court concluded that the Council's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and therefore, the plaintiff's application for judicial review was successful. The court ordered that the Council's decision be quashed and remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the court ordered that the Council pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

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.