Malouf v Woollahra Municipal Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1655


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Malouf v Woollahra Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1655
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 23 November, 15 December 2016
Date of orders: 20 December 2016
Decision date: 20 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: Modification – development application: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Edward Malouf (Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Tony Hatzis, Hatzis Cusack Lawyers (Applicant)
Stuart Simington,Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00235041
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld in part.

  2. Application number DA387/2012/4 made under s96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to development consent No. DA387/2012 is approved by:

Amending condition I.20 to read as follows:

I.20 Bay Street Windows and Doors – Hours of Use

The windows and doors fronting Bay Street are to be closed at the    following times:

Monday to Saturday    12 midnight

Sunday       11pm

Amending condition I.13 to read as follows:

I.13 Cooper Street Bi-Fold Windows – Hours of Use

The bi-fold windows fronting Cooper Street are to be closed from    10pm seven nights a week to protect the amenity of the residential    neighbours in Cooper Street.

  1. As a consequence of orders (2) and (3) above, the Court notes that Development Consent DA/387/2012 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure A.

…………….

Susan Dixon

Commissioner

235041.16 Dixon (C) (561 KB, pdf) 

Details
AGLC
Malouf v Woollahra Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1655
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1655
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Malouf v Woollahra Municipal Council, the plaintiff, Malouf, brought an action against the Woollahra Municipal Council, challenging the Council's decision to deny her application for a development permit. The dispute centred on the plaintiff's application to construct a four-storey residential building on a property located in the Sydney suburb of Darling Point. The Woollahra Municipal Council rejected the application, citing concerns that the proposed development did not comply with local planning regulations, including height restrictions and setback requirements. Malouf sought judicial review of the Council's decision in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision to refuse the development permit was lawful and whether the plaintiff's application complied with the relevant planning and development regulations. In particular, the court needed to determine whether the proposed building exceeded permissible height limits, whether the setbacks were adequate, and if the Council's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations or was otherwise flawed. The court also examined whether the plaintiff's application was in accordance with the local planning scheme and whether the Council's decision-making process was procedurally fair.

The court found that the Council's decision to refuse the development permit was lawful. It held that the proposed building exceeded the height limits specified in the local planning scheme and that the setbacks were insufficient. The court found that the Council had properly considered relevant planning policies and that its decision-making process was procedurally sound. The plaintiff's argument that the Council had failed to properly consider the potential benefits of the proposed development was rejected. The court concluded that the Council's decision was based on relevant considerations and was not irrational or otherwise unlawful. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for judicial review was dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the Woollahra Municipal Council's refusal of the plaintiff's development permit application was upheld. The court's judgment confirmed that the Council's decision was lawful and that the plaintiff's application did not comply with the relevant planning and development regulations. The plaintiff was not granted permission to construct the proposed four-storey residential building on the property in Darling Point.

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.