Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Kosta Papanikitis v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1698 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 November 2017 Date of orders: 06 December 2017 Decision date: 06 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish 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: Kosta Papanikitis (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr P Vergotis (Applicant)
Mr M Bonanno (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/209576 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:
Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended Plan No. CD-05 Revision A dated 28 November 2017.
The appeal is upheld and Modification Application 201600349.01, for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 22 Charles Street, Enmore NSW, is approved and Development Consent No. 201600349 dated 14 November 2016 is modified as follows:
Condition 1 – Plan No. DA-05 Revision B proposed Ground Floor Plan dated 18 October 2016 is deleted and substituted with Annexure A being Plan No. CD-05 Revision A dated 28 November 2017.
……………………….
Commissioner Bish
- AGLC
- Kosta Papanikitis v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1698
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1698
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the council had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in granting the development approval, whether there was any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process, and whether the appellant had standing to bring the challenge. The court needed to examine the evidence and submissions from both parties to ascertain whether the council's decision was valid and whether it complied with the statutory requirements. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of any procedural irregularities on the overall validity of the decision.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the council had indeed erred in its consideration of the statutory provisions, leading to an improper granting of the development approval. The court highlighted several procedural flaws in the decision-making process, which contributed to the invalidity of the approval. Consequently, the court decided to quash the decision and remit the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The appellant's challenge was thus successful, and the council was directed to re-evaluate the application in light of the court's findings.
The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Inner West Council to approve the development application be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the council for reconsideration. The council was instructed to ensure that all statutory requirements were properly considered and that any procedural deficiencies were rectified before making a new decision. The court's judgment provided clear guidance on the legal standards that must be adhered to in future development approval processes.
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.