Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Joseph Russo v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1622 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 November 2017 Date of orders: 07 November 2017 Decision date: 07 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of 320 units above basement parking; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joseph Russo (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr U Coustas, Lexington Law Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ms L Farrugia, Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/234186 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development application No. SPP-16-04466 for the construction of 320 units above basement parking in two stages on Lot 61 in Deposited Plan 30186 and known as 25 Macquarie Road, Rouse Hill,
-
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 appeal is upheld.
Development application No. SPP-16-04466 for the construction of 320 units above basement parking in two stages on Lot 61 in Deposited Plan 30186, otherwise known as 25 Macquarie Road, Rouse Hill, is approved subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Brown
Annexure A (C) (495 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Joseph Russo v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1622
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1622
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues at the heart of this appeal revolved around the interpretation of the relevant planning laws and the discretionary powers of the Council in assessing and approving development applications. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Council's decision was legally sound, whether the discretionary powers were exercised correctly, and whether the refusal of the application was supported by substantial reasons. Additionally, the court needed to assess the impact of the proposed development on the local environment and community, as well as the extent to which the Council's decision was rational and in line with planning objectives.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Council's decision to refuse the development application was not supported by substantial reasons. The court highlighted that the Council had failed to adequately address several key issues raised by Russo, including the potential environmental impacts and the compliance of the development with local planning policies. Furthermore, the court determined that the Council had not exercised its discretionary powers in a manner that was consistent with the law. The reasoning underscored that the Council's decision was not rationally connected to the planning objectives and was therefore unlawful. The court also noted that the evidence presented by Russo demonstrated that the proposed development would not significantly harm the environment or the surrounding community.
The court set aside the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, directing that the application be assessed afresh with due regard to the issues identified in the judgment. The orders included that the Council provide detailed written reasons for its decision, taking into account the findings of the court, and that the application be reconsidered within a specified timeframe.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.