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
-
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.
-
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
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
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”.
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)
- AGLC
- Miskoski v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1252
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1252
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.