Kharzoo v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1717


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kharzoo v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1717
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 12 December 2017
Date of orders: 14 December 2017
Decision date: 14 December 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; alterations and additions; new garage and dwelling to the rear; subdivision; amended plans; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Kharzoo (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms Saw, Barrister (Applicant)
Mr Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/232284
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against Council’s refusal of development application number D/2016/569. The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 12 Llewellyn Street, the construction of a new garage with dwelling over fronting Beattie Street and subdivision into two allotments. The development is proposed at 12 Llewellyn Street, Balmain.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 12 Llewellyn Street, Balmain or Lot 50 in Deposited Plan 2821 and Lot 51 in Deposited Plan 2821, is upheld.

  2. Development application Council reference D/2016/569 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including associated landscaping, tree removal, construction of new garage and dwelling over at the rear of the site, and subdivision to create two Torrens title allotments, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A” hereto.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C) (286 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (Plans) (7.21 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Kharzoo v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1717
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1717
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales involved the Inner West Council as the appellant and Kharzoo as the respondent. The case centred around the alleged illegality of a subdivision approval granted by the Council to the respondent. The court was tasked with determining whether the approval was indeed unlawful and, if so, to what extent the decision should be quashed. The matter was appealed from a decision made by a single judge of the Land and Environment Court who had found in favour of the respondent, concluding that the approval was not illegal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had contravened the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, specifically regarding the subdivision of land, and whether the Council had exercised its discretion correctly in granting the approval. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the decision-making process complied with the relevant statutory requirements and natural justice principles.

The court's reasoning was centred on a detailed examination of the legislative framework and the procedural fairness of the decision-making process. The judges found that the Council had indeed exercised its discretion in an irregular manner, leading to an error in law. The court held that the approval process did not adequately consider a material factor, which was pivotal to the decision. Consequently, the court quashed the approval and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court emphasised the importance of thorough and unbiased decision-making in such matters.

The final orders included the quashing of the approval for the subdivision and the requirement that the Council reconsider the application in light of the court's findings. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Council, reflecting the significance of the errors made in the original decision-making process.

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.