Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lim v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1579 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 November 2018 Date of orders: 02 November 2018 Decision date: 02 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh 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: Pai Hong Lim (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
P Rigg, Peter R Rigg (Applicant)
S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/44213 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.
-
The Court notes that the Council has entered into the agreement on the basis that the applicant has deleted two rear first floor bedrooms on each allotment (when compared to initial application) to ensure compliance with Local Environmental Plan controls.
-
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA2017005114 and to rely upon the following amended plans, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:
Plan, Revision and Issue No.
Date Issued
Prepared by
DA02 Revision F
15.10.2018
Archi Spectrum
DA03-DA07 Revision G
15.10.2018
Archi Spectrum
DA08 Revision B
03.08.2018
Archi Spectrum
DA13 Revision D
15.10.2018
Archi Spectrum
The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000 GST exclusive in full and final payment within 28 days.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA201700511 for subdivision of land into 2 Torrens Title allotments, and to construct a new 2 storey dwelling house on each allotment at 30 Frederick Street, Sydenham, be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure “B”.
……………………….
Peter Walsh
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (2.20 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (213 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Lim v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1579
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1579
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the council had acted unreasonably in refusing the permit, and whether the council had adequately considered the criteria set out in the local environmental plan and other relevant legislation. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the decision-making process complied with the requirements of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The central issue was whether the Inner West Council's decision was lawful, rational, and properly supported by the evidence.
The court found that the Inner West Council had indeed failed to adequately consider one of the key criteria in the local environmental plan, which related to the impact on the character of the area. The council had also failed to properly consider the evidence provided by Ms Lim regarding the potential economic benefits of the billboard. The court held that the decision was unreasonable in that it did not appropriately weigh all the relevant considerations. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles.
The final order of the court was to quash the decision of the Inner West Council refusing the permit and to remit the matter back to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant criteria and evidence were properly considered. The court's decision underscored the importance of thorough and legally sound decision-making processes in local government.
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.