Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Maham Group Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1247 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 April 2017 Date of orders: 17 May 2017 Decision date: 17 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1) against refusal of application for construction of boarding house: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Maham Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Conomos Legal, (Applicant)
Storey and Gough Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00386185 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the refusal of Development Application No. DA/380/2016 for demolition, tree removal and construction of a two storey boarding house development consisting of 25 rooms.
-
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 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application rely upon the plans set out in Condition 2 in Annexure A;
The appeal is upheld; and
Development application DA/380/2016 which proposes demolition of all structures, tree removal and the construction of a two storey boarding house development consisting of 25 rooms, including a managers room and three accessible rooms and the provision of parking for 6 cars (including one disabled space) and 5 motocycles is approved subject to conditions of consent set out in Annexure A.
…………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
386185.16 Dickson (C) (477 KB, pdf)
386185.16 Dickson - Plans (4.52 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Maham Group Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1247
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1247
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the council's decisions were compliant with the relevant statutory frameworks, including the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). A central concern was whether the council had followed the proper procedures in making these decisions, and whether there were any instances of bias or procedural unfairness. The court also considered whether the decisions were supported by proper consideration of relevant evidence and whether the council had exercised its discretion reasonably.
After thorough consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, Justice Preston concluded that the council's decisions were valid and lawful. The court found that the council had followed the proper statutory procedures, and that there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or bias. The court further determined that the council's decisions were supported by the evidence and were exercised within the scope of its statutory powers. Consequently, the court dismissed Maham Group's claims in their entirety.
In summary, the court upheld the validity of the Cumberland Council's decisions regarding the property, finding that they were made in accordance with the relevant statutory frameworks and procedural requirements. The orders of the court included dismissing Maham Group's claims and awarding costs to the Cumberland Council.
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.