Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lam v Strathfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1509 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2, 19, 23 September, 5, 18 October 2016 Date of orders: 01 November 2016 Decision date: 01 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Benjamin Lam (Applicant)
Strathfield Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
V. Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
A. Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00168682 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, 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 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 Title
Drawing No.
Revision
Prepared by
Dated
GFA Calculations
A1050
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Infill Affordable Housing
A1052
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Survey Plan
A1100
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Basement 01
A1200
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Ground Floor Plan
A1201
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Level 01
A1202
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Level 02
A1203
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Level 03
A1204
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Roof Plan
A1205
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Shadow Diagram 9.00am
A1300
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Shadow Diagram 12.00pm
A1301
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Shadow Diagram 3.00pm
A1302
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Shadow Diagram 3D
A1303
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Elevations Plan
A1500
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Sections Plan
A1700
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Communal Open Space Calculation
A3000
J
Ghazi Al Ali Architects
23/9/2016
Document Title
Dated
BASIX Certificate No. 508062M_04
19 October 2016
The appeal is upheld.
The application made pursuant to section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (modification application DA2013/198/02) to modify Development Consent No. DA2013/198 (as modified), for a four storey residential flat building on the land at 4 Exeter Road, Homebush, is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure “A”.
As a consequence of order 2.3, Development Consent No. DA2013/198 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent as set out in Annexure “B”.
…………….
Jenny Smithson
Commissioner
168682.16 - Annexure A (12.9 KB, pdf)
168682.16 - Annexure B (78.3 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Lam v Strathfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1509
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1509
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision was lawful and if it had acted in accordance with the relevant planning laws. The plaintiff argued that the refusal was arbitrary and not in line with the statutory guidelines, while the Council contended that the decision was justified under the planning legislation and that the property did not meet the criteria for a change of use.
In delivering the judgment, the court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the Council had correctly applied the planning laws and had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The evidence showed that the proposed change of use would not be in line with the surrounding area's character and would not comply with the local planning policies. The court concluded that the Council's decision was not unlawful and was supported by proper considerations.
As a result, the court dismissed Mr Lam's claims and upheld the Council's decision. The orders made by the court included that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.
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.