Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Levy v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1223 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 April 2018 and 7 May 2018 Date of orders: 16 May 2018 Decision date: 16 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION: modification of a condition of development consent for additional trading hours; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Marcus Levy (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
D Manca, LAS Lawyers & Consultants (Applicant)
P Canning, The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/356072 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of an application to modify development consent D/2002/420 by amending condition 3 to permit extended trading hours and amending condition 24, Plan of Management, for 360-370 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills.
-
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:
The appeal is upheld.
Development application D/2002/420/C lodged on 21 August 2017 to modify development consent D/2002/420 by amending condition 3 to permit extended trading hours and amending condition 24, Plan of Management, for 360-370 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Graham Brown
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (149 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Levy v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1223
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1223
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the Council had correctly applied the statutory criteria in denying Mr Levy's permit application and whether the decision was reasonable and lawful. The court also needed to determine if the Council had provided adequate reasons for its decision and whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair. Furthermore, the court examined whether Mr Levy's rights under the relevant planning laws were properly considered and protected.
In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the statutory provisions and case law relevant to planning decisions. It found that the Council had indeed correctly applied the statutory criteria and that its decision was both reasonable and lawful. The court was satisfied that the Council had provided sufficient reasons for its decision and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court also concluded that Mr Levy's rights under the planning laws were adequately considered. Consequently, the plaintiff's application was dismissed, and the Council's decision was upheld.
ORDERS:
1. Mr Levy's application for review of the Council's decision is dismissed.
2. Costs of the proceeding to be paid by Mr Levy.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [5] 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.