Koukoutas v Canterbury Bankstown Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1633


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Koukoutas v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1633
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 26 October, 25 November, 2 and 22 December 2016
Date of orders: 23 December 2016
Decision date: 23 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: Andrew Koukoutas (Applicant)
Canterbury Bankstown Council(Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Clay SC with Ms J Reid (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
John B Hajje & Associates(Applicant)
Mr A Seton
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):181966/2016
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, 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. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Drawing No.

Drawing Name

Rev No.

Prepared By:

Dated

DA01

Cover sheet

F

Morson Group

20 December 2016

DA04

Site plan and roof plan

D

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA05

Site analysis and demolition plan

D

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA06

Basement floor plan

E

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA07

Ground floor plan

G

Morson Group

20 December 2016

DA08

Level 1 floor plan

F

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA09

Level 2 floor plan

G

Morson Group

20 December 2016

DA10

Roof plan

E

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA11

Elevations 1

E

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA12

Elevations 2

F

Morson Group

20 December 2016

DA13

Sections

F

Morson Group

20 December 2016

DA14

Existing Shadow Diagram – June 21st

B

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA15

Proposed Shadow Diagrams – June 21st

E

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA16

Visualization 1

D

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA17

Visualization 2

C

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA18

Compliance schedule and BASIX requirements

D

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA19

SEPP Compliance Summary

D

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA20

Shadow 3D Analysis – Proposed

D

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA22

DCP/ADG Compliant Envelope Study

C

Morson Group

15 December 2016

DA23

Solar Access – Diagrams

E

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA24

Fence condition at rear boundary

B

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA25

Long section and Bdyinterface at 63/65 Park St

A

Morson Group

4 December 2016

DA26

Northern external façade view study

B

Morson Group

20 December 2016

DA27

Deep soil analysis plan

B

Morson Group

20 December 2016

DA28

Fence Detail to Northern Boundary

A

Morson Group

20 December 2016

Nos. 1-25

Solar Study 83 Duke Street – Compliant Envelope

A

Morson Group

4 December 2016

LPDA 16-78/1

Landscape Plan

G

Conzept Landscape Architects

5 December 2016

Document Title

Prepared by

Dated

Basix Certificate No. 672027M

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 568/2015 for the Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 8 units over on level of basement parking accommodating 10 car parking spaces at 81 Duke Street, Campsie subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

181966.2016 (C Annexure A) (230 KB, pdf)

181966.2016Architectural Drawings (5.59 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Koukoutas v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1633
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1633
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Koukoutas v Canterbury Bankstown Council was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, dealing with an appeal against the decision of a local council. The appellant, Mr Koukoutas, contested the council's imposition of a penalty on his property for non-compliance with local zoning laws. The property in question was a café located in a residential area, which Mr Koukoutas argued was an appropriate use of the land given the established character of the area. The council argued that the café constituted an illegal use of the property and imposed a penalty for non-compliance.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council had the authority to impose such penalties under the relevant local laws and whether the café's operation constituted a non-compliant use of the property. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate scope of discretion afforded to local councils in enforcing zoning regulations. Mr Koukoutas argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, while the council maintained that its actions were within its lawful powers.

The court examined the statutory framework governing local council powers and zoning regulations. It found that the council did indeed have the authority to impose penalties for non-compliance with zoning laws. However, the court also considered the principle of proportionality in the enforcement of these regulations. It held that while the council's powers were valid, the penalty imposed was excessive and not justified under the circumstances. The court ruled that the council's decision was not only unreasonable but also disproportionate to the nature of the breach.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the penalty imposed by the council, and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration. The council was directed to reassess the penalty in light of the court's findings, ensuring that any future penalty imposed was both reasonable and proportionate to the breach. This decision underscores the importance of judicial oversight in the enforcement of local zoning regulations to ensure fairness and legality in council decisions.

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.