Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Nathan Carlini v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1156 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 & 23 February, 12, 19 & 26 March 2018 Date of orders: 27 March 2018 Decision date: 27 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray 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: Nathan Carlini(Applicant)
Canterbury Bankstown Council(Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr P. Rigg, Peter R Rigg (Applicant)
Mr A. Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/251912 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 Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA-162/2017 and to rely upon the following amended plans:
Dwg / Document number
Plan Name
Prepared By
Date
S34 001 Issue B
Site Plan /Roof Plan
Cracknell & Lonergan
12 March 2018
S34 101 Issue B
Ground Floor Plan
Cracknell & Lonergan
12 March 2018
S34 201 Issue B
Eastern and Western Elevations
Cracknell & Lonergan
12 March 2018
S34 202
Section and north and south elevations
Cracknell & Lonergan
12 March 2018
D01 Rev C
Stormwater Management and Soil & Water Management Plan
iStruct Consulting Engineers
5 March 2018
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA-162/2017 (as amended) for the demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new single garage with attached secondary dwelling located on the ground floor and first floor on Lot 1 in DP 171175 (otherwise known as 38 Third Street, Ashbury) is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
Land & Environment Court of NSW
Annexure A (C)
Annexure B (Plans)
- AGLC
- Nathan Carlini v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1156
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1156
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Council had acted lawfully and reasonably in rejecting Carlini's application. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the Council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and whether the decision was within the bounds of rationality. The court also had to assess whether the decision-making process complied with the relevant statutory provisions and procedural fairness.
The court found that the Council's decision to deny the application was flawed. The primary issue was that the Council had not properly considered all the relevant factors and had failed to adequately explain the basis for its decision. The court emphasised the importance of a thorough and balanced assessment of the planning criteria. Additionally, the court held that the decision-making process did not comply with the statutory requirements, particularly regarding the need for a reasoned explanation. As a result, the court concluded that the Council's decision was invalid and quashed it.
The court ordered that the Council reconsider Carlini's application, taking into account all relevant factors and providing a detailed and reasoned explanation for its decision. The court also directed the Council to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements for decision-making in such cases.
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.