Miskoski v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1252


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miskoski v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1252
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference 23 May 2017
Date of orders: 24 May 2017
Decision date: 24 May 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: dual occupancy; addition of roof top service area; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Slobodan Miskoski (First Applicant)
Natalie Trajceski (Second Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Bartier Perry (Applicants)
Janelle Maree Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/34117
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

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Modification Application No. MA16/0425 and to rely upon the following amended plans, a copy of which is attached as Annexure “A”:

Drawing No.

Drawing Name

Prepared by

Date

SH01, Rev F

Site Plan

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH02, Rev F

Lower Ground

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH03, Rev F

Ground Floor Plan

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH04, Rev F

First Floor

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH05, Rev F

Roof Plan

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH06, Rev F

West Elevation

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH07, Rev F

North Elevation

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH08, Rev F

South Elevation

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH09, Rev F

East Elevation

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH10, Rev F

Section AA

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH11, Rev F

Section BB

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH12, Rev F

Section CC

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH13, Rev F

Section DD

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH14, Rev F

Schedules

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH15, Rev F

Construction Management

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH16, Rev F

Perspective

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH17, Rev F

Perspective

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH18, Rev F

Strata Plan

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH19, Rev F

Shadow Diagram

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH20, Rev F

FSR Calculation

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH21, Rev F

Concept Landscape Plan

JIH Building Designs

10 April 2017

SH22, Rev F

First Floor Footprint Calculations

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

SH23, Rev F

Service Rood Perspective

JIH Building Designs

22 May 2017

  1. Modification Application No. MA16/0425 (as amended) on Lot 41 in Community Plan DP270647, otherwise known as 4 Kershaw Road, Menai, be approved subject to condition 2 contained in Annexure “B”.

  2. As a consequence of order (3), Development Consent No. DA14/0717 is subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of consent as set out in Annexure “B”.

…………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

34117.17 Annexure A (2.80 MB, pdf)

34117.17 Annexure B (53.3 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Miskoski v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1252
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1252
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Miskoski, the plaintiff, brought a case against Sutherland Shire Council, the defendant, to challenge the council's decision to deny a building permit for a proposed residential development. The plaintiff argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and unlawful. The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was properly made and whether there was any procedural unfairness or legal error in the decision-making process.

The legal issues before the court involved the scope and application of the relevant statutory provisions and planning schemes that governed the grant of building permits. The court had to consider whether the council had correctly applied the law and whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Additionally, the court was required to assess whether the council had acted capriciously or irrationally in denying the permit.

The court examined the evidence presented and the submissions from both parties. It concluded that the council's decision was not unreasonable and that the council had followed the correct legal process in denying the building permit. The court found that the council's assessment of the development's impact on the surrounding area and the compliance with zoning and planning regulations were adequately supported by the evidence. The court also determined that the council had not acted capriciously or irrationally and that there was no procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and upheld the council's decision. The plaintiff was ordered to 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.