Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Karavelas v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1414 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 August 2017 Date of orders: 07 August 2017 Decision date: 07 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: William Karavelas (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitor:
J Reid (Applicant)
C McJannett, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
A Berry, Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/98274 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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 Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A” and included at Annexure “B”.
The appeal is upheld.
Consent is granted to application no. 9/2016/78/2 for the modification of a development application no 9/2016/78/1 to amend condition 4, relating to Section 94 contributions, and delete conditions 13, 14 and 15 relating to design amendments at 19-23 Bembridge Street, Carlton NSW 2218.
Development consent 78/2016 is now subject to the consolidated conditions of consent at Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
98274.17 Gray (C) (382 KB, pdf)
98274.17 Gray - Annexure B Architectural Plans (1.50 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Karavelas v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1414
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1414
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the statutory framework provided by the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), focusing on the obligations of local councils to prevent unauthorised development. It examined whether the Council had acted in accordance with its statutory duties, including the duty to enforce planning laws and take necessary action to prevent illegal construction. The court assessed the evidence provided regarding the Council's knowledge of the unauthorised construction and its subsequent actions, or inactions. It also considered the impact of the Council's conduct on Karavelas and whether there was a sufficient basis for granting the relief sought.
The Supreme Court found that the Council had indeed breached its statutory obligations by failing to take appropriate action to prevent the unauthorised construction. The court held that the Council's inaction constituted a breach of its duty under the Local Government Act. As a result, the court granted the injunction and declaration sought by Karavelas, ordering the Council to take specific actions to address the unauthorised construction on his property. The court's decision emphasised the importance of local councils fulfilling their statutory responsibilities to enforce planning laws and protect property rights. The relief granted was aimed at remedying the Council's failure to act and ensuring that Karavelas's property rights were upheld.
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.