Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Kozarovski v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1370 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 August 2016 Date of orders: 05 August 2016 Decision date: 05 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: Development application: conversion of an existing office to a 24 place child care centre, traffic safety, public interest; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Marko Kozarovski (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Craig Tidemann, Thomson Geer (Applicant)
Ms Jane Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00149966 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
ACTING 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, 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 applicant is granted leave to rely on:
Drawing Nos. DA102 and DA201, issue D;
Drawing Nos. DA202, DA301,302,303, DA304, issue C;
Amended Acoustic Report, prepared by Acoustic Noise & Vibrations Solutions, dated 25 July 2016; and
Revised Plan of Management dated 25 July 2016.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA 2014/1108 for 'Conversion of office to Child Care Centre' at Lot 53 in Strata Plan 54531 and known as Unit 53, 2 – 8 Bridge Street, Hurstville, is approved subject to the conditions in annexure 'A'.
The parties agree that the amendments are minor and s97B costs do not apply.
…………….
R Hussey
Acting Commissioner
149966.16 - Annexure A (103 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Kozarovski v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1370
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1370
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the council had the authority to refuse the development approval certificate, and whether the decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The court needed to examine the relevant legislation and case law to determine the scope of the council's powers, and whether the decision was reasonable and lawful.
The court found that the council had the authority to refuse the development approval certificate, and that the decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the council's decision was lawful, and that there was no basis for the court to interfere with the decision. The court noted that the council had considered all relevant factors in making its decision, and that the decision was not unreasonable or unlawful.
The court dismissed Kozarovski's application and ordered him to pay the council's costs. The court held that the council was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis, as the application was frivolous and vexatious. The court also noted that the council had incurred significant costs in defending the application, and that it was appropriate to award costs on an indemnity basis. Overall, the court found in favour of the council and dismissed Kozarovski's application.
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.