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
-
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.
-
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 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.
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)
- AGLC
- Kharzoo v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1717
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1717
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.