Raad v Hunters Hill Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1064


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Raad v Hunters Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1064
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 December 2017, 5 & 14 February 2018
Date of orders: 15 February 2018
Decision date: 15 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – balcony and roof - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Milad Sarkis Raad (Applicant)
Hunters Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr S Kondilios, Hall & Wilcox (Applicant)
Mr J Cole, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/244578
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. Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans listed in paragraph 1 of the conditions set out in Annexure A, being the plans prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Limited dated 12 February 2018 and identified as:

  1. DA-101-C1-A - Site Plan

  2. DA-103-C1-A - Site Plan - Showing hard and soft landscaping areas refer to attached landscape drawings for details

  3. DA-104-C1-A - Floor Plans

  4. DA-106-C1-A - Elevations

  5. DA-109-C1-A - Details

  6. DA-120-C1-A - Roof Plan

  7. DA-206-C1-A - Sections

  1. Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended landscape plan listed in paragraph 1 of the conditions set out in Annexure A, being the landscape plan prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects dated 13 February 2018 and identified as:

  1. Site Plan

  2. LPS34 18 - 186 / 1 (Rev C) - Landscape Plan

  1. The appeal is upheld and application 2016-1036-1, being a modification to the approved Development Consent no. 2016-1036, for minor amendments to the approved balcony and pergola roof at 61-63 Huntleys Point Road, Huntleys Point, NSW, 2111, is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Gray

Annexure A (C) (49.0 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (4.44 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Raad v Hunters Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1064
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1064
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Raad v Hunters Hill Council involved the applicant, Raad, who sought a review of a decision made by the Council, which was the respondent. The dispute centred around the Council's refusal to grant a development application for the applicant's property, which was located in a heritage conservation area. The applicant sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that there were procedural errors in the way the decision was made.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and based on relevant considerations, and whether there were any procedural errors that rendered the decision invalid. The court had to consider whether the Council had exercised its discretion lawfully and whether it had taken into account all relevant considerations. The applicant also argued that the Council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which was a breach of the principle of procedural fairness.

The court found that the Council had exercised its discretion lawfully and had taken into account all relevant considerations. The court also found that the Council's decision was based on a rational and logical process, and that there were no procedural errors that rendered the decision invalid. The court held that the reasons provided by the Council were sufficient to demonstrate that it had considered all relevant factors and had exercised its discretion in a manner that was consistent with the law. The court dismissed the applicant's claim for judicial review.

As a result of the court's decision, the applicant's claim for judicial review was dismissed, and the Council's decision to refuse the development application was upheld. The court found that the Council had acted within its lawful powers and had exercised its discretion in a manner that was consistent with the law. The court also found that the reasons provided by the Council were sufficient to demonstrate that it had considered all relevant factors and had exercised its discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of procedural fairness. The applicant's claim for damages was also dismissed.

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.