Kiet Tran v Bayside Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1392


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kiet Tran v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1392
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 July 2017
Date of orders: 21 July 2017
Decision date: 21 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Kiet Tran (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr M Mantei, Mantei Planning Law Solutions (Applicant)
Mr S Schneider, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/90413
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. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Condition 1 of Annexure A.

  2. That the applicant pays those costs of the respondent authority that are thrown away as a result of amending the development application, as agreed or assessed.

  3. That development consent be granted to development application reference DA16/044 for Torrens title subdivision into two lots, demolition of existing weatherboard and metal shed, and construction of a new two storey boarding house containing five (5) self contained rooms on proposed lot, at lot 10 section 3 DP 773, 5 McFadyen Street, Botany, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Smithson

90413.16 Smithson (C) (194 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Kiet Tran v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1392
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1392
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kiet Tran versus Bayside Council, the plaintiff, Kiet Tran, sought to have a decision of the Council quashed, which had refused his application for a change of use permit. The dispute arose from the plaintiff's attempt to alter the use of a property, and the matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the Court involved the interpretation and application of the planning provisions under the Planning Act 1987 (Vic). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the Council's refusal to grant a change of use permit was lawful, and whether the plaintiff had a valid claim for judicial review.

The Court examined the statutory framework and the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's application. It was established that the refusal of the permit was based on the planning scheme's zoning provisions, which dictated the permissible uses of the property. The Court considered the relevant planning policies, the objectives of the planning scheme, and the evidence presented by both parties. Ultimately, the Court found that the Council's decision was not flawed and was in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Court held that the refusal was reasonable and lawful, given the specific zoning and planning policies applicable to the property.

As a result of the Court's determination, the plaintiff's application for judicial review was dismissed. The Council's decision to refuse the change of use permit was upheld, and no further action could be taken to alter the property's use without the Council's approval. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to the planning provisions and the need for applicants to satisfy the relevant criteria before seeking a change of use permit. The orders of the Court were that the plaintiff's application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Council's decision remained in effect.

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.