Pan v Canterbury Bankstown Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1515


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pan v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1515
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 9 June, 12 July, 8 August, 10 & 28 October 2016
Date of orders: 31 October 2016
Decision date: 31 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: Shuhui Pan (Applicant)
Canterbury Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr V Conomos
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Ms P Hudson
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):155256/2016
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, 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 given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documents as the plans and documents relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Drawing No.

Drawing Title

Prepared by

Revision

Dated

A 0020

Unit Schedule

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

D

04/08/2016

A 1000

Site Analysis

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

C

21/06/2016

A 1010

Site Plan

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

C

21/06/2016

A 1050

GFA Calculation

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

I

04/08/2016

A 1051

Solar Access Study

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

I

04/08/2016

A 1052

Cross-Ventilation Study

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

I

04/08/2016

A 1053

Affordable Housing

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

F

04/07/2016

A 1054

Landscape

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

D

04/07/2016

A 1055

Storage Diagram

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

D

04/07/2016

A 1056

Solar Access Study to Communal Open Space

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

A

04/07/2016

A 1101

Demolition Plan

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

B

21/06/2016

A 1102

Streetscape Analysis

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A 1200

Basement 01

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

I

04/07/2016

A 1201

Ground Floor Plan

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A 1202

Level 01

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

I

04/07/2016

A 1203

Level 02

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A 1204

Level 03

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A 1205

Roof Plan

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A 1300

Shadow Diagram 9.00AM to 11.00AM – 21 June Winter Solstice

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

G

04/07/2016

A 1301

Shadow Diagram 12.00PM to 2.00PM – 21 June Winter Solstice

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

G

04/07/2016

A 1302

Shadow Diagram 15.00PM – 21 June Winter Solstice

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

G

04/07/2016

A 1303

Shadow Diagram Analysis

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

G

04/07/2016

A 1304

Shadow Diagram Analysis in 3D – 27-29 Perry Street, Campsie

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

C

04/07/2016

A 1305

Shadow Diagram Analysis in 3D – 33 Perry Street, Campsie

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

C

04/07/2016

A 1306

Shadow Diagram Analysis in 3D – 21 June Winter Solstice

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

E

15/08/2016

A 1306(1)

Shadow Diagram Analysis in 3D – 21 June Winter Solstice

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

C

15/08/2016

A 1307

Shadow Diagram Analysis in 3D – Shadow to 27-29 Perry Street

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

C

15/08/2016

A 1308

Shadow Diagram Analysis in 3D – Shadow to 33 Perry Street, Campsie

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

C

15/08/2016

A 1400

Elevations

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A 1401

Elevations

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A 1500

Sections

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A1600

Material Schedule

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A1601

Material Schedule

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

K

15/08/2016

A 2000

Perspectives

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

A

04/07/2016

Document

Prepared by

Dated

Amended Statement of Environmental Effects

Willana Associates

August 2016

BCA & Access Compliance Assessment Report

Certified Building Specialists

15 August 2016

SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement

Ghazi Al Ali Architect

Undated

BASIX Certificate No. 598469M_05

14 August 2016

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA 617/2014 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey plus attic residential flat building containing 11 apartments (1 studio, 2x 1 bedrooms, 1x 1 bedroom plus study, 5x 2 bedrooms, 2x 3 bedrooms), over basement car parking containing 10 parking spaces on the land known as 31-31A Perry Street, Campsie subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

155256.16 - Annexure A (97.3 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Pan v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1515
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1515
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pan v Canterbury Bankstown Council, the parties involved are the applicant, Pan, and the Canterbury Bankstown Council, the respondent. The dispute pertains to the applicant's challenge of a decision by the respondent regarding the allocation of land use. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought to overturn a decision by the respondent council, which had approved a planning application for a commercial development on land that the applicant claimed was designated for community use. The court had to determine whether the council had acted lawfully and whether the applicant's procedural rights were upheld during the decision-making process.

The legal issues before the court included whether the council had the authority to approve the development as it did, and whether the applicant's procedural fairness was maintained throughout the decision-making process. The applicant argued that the council had not properly considered the zoning of the land and had failed to give adequate notice of the planning application, infringing on the applicant's right to be heard. The respondent maintained that the decision was lawful, as the zoning had been correctly assessed and all procedural requirements were fulfilled.

In considering these issues, the court examined the relevant planning legislation and the procedural fairness requirements under administrative law. The court found that the council had correctly applied the zoning laws and had fulfilled its obligations under the planning act. The court also held that the applicant was adequately informed of the planning application and had the opportunity to make submissions, thus procedural fairness was observed. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's challenge and upheld the council's decision.

The court ordered that the decision of the Canterbury Bankstown Council to approve the planning application be upheld, and that the applicant's challenge be dismissed. The applicant was to bear the 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.