Nathan Carlini v Canterbury Bankstown Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1156


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

  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 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

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. 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)

Details
AGLC
Nathan Carlini v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1156
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Nathan Carlini, who brought an action against Canterbury Bankstown Council. The dispute centred around a decision by the Council to deny Carlini's application to construct a single-storey extension to his home. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

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.