Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Rachelle Nader v STRATHFIELD MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [2017] NSWLEC 1527 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 September 2017 Date of orders: 22 September 2017 Decision date: 22 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: Rachelle Nader (Applicant)
Strathfield Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr P Saab, Macquarie Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsden Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/149904 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 given leave to amend the modification application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Drawing Title
Drawing No.
Revision
Prepared by
Dated
Proposed Ground Site Plan
DWG No.05
G
POC + P Architects
15/09/2017
Proposed Roof & Stormwater Drainage Concept Plan
DWG 07a
H
POC + P Architects
15/09/2017
Waste Management + Erosion Plan
DWG No.17
C
POC + P Architects
15/09/2017
Landscape Plan – General Site Coverage
DWG No.18
C
POC + P Architects
15/09/2017
Document Title
Issued to
Subject
Date
Correspondence from Willana Associates
R Nader
c/- Macquarie Lawyers
PO Box 52
Parramatta NSW 2150
Nader v Strathfield Council, 2 to 4 Barker Street, Strathfield
21 August 2017
The appeal is upheld.
The application made pursuant to section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (modification application DA 2016/005/01) to modify Development Consent No. DA2016/005, for alterations and additions to a heritage listed dwelling comprising internal reconfiguration of rooms, alteration to windows and doors, conversion of a summerhouse to a triple carport and the installation of an in-ground swimming pool and patio area on the land at 2-4 Barker Road, Strathfield (lot 2 in Deposited Plan 325296), by amending the design of the front access path to stepping stones and providing for a small hard stand area adjacent to the entrance portico in the north eastern corner of the site (as shown on the amended plan “Proposed Ground Site Plan”, Drawing 05 – Issue G, dated 15 September 2017 prepared by POC + P Architects) is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure “A”.
As a consequence of order 2.3, Development Consent No. DA2016/005 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent as set out in Annexure “B”.
……………………….
Commissioner Chilcott
Annexure A (214 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (259 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Rachelle Nader v Strathfield Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1527
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1527
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory framework governing building permits and the principles of administrative law that apply to such decisions. It considered whether the respondent had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant legislation in refusing the permit. The court also assessed whether the decision was open to challenge on the grounds of unreasonableness or irrationality. It held that the respondent’s decision was not unlawful as it was based on proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria and applicable planning policies. The applicant’s argument that the decision was irrational was rejected, as the court found the respondent had provided adequate reasons for the decision that were supported by the evidence.
The court concluded that the respondent had exercised its discretion lawfully and rationally, and the decision was therefore valid. The applicant’s application for judicial review was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’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.