Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ray Ters v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1024 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 December 2016 Date of orders: 13 January 2017 Decision date: 13 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon 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: Ray Ters (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
M. Arch, Concordia Pacific(Applicant)
J. Strati, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/269908 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 the development application by substituting the following amended plans and documents relied on for the purpose of the section application:
Plan, Revision and Issue No.
Plan Name/ Certificate
Type
Date Issued
Prepared by
Date Submitted
DA-02 Revision B
Subdivision Plan
13.12.16
Mackenzie Pronk Architects
13.12.16
DA-03 Revision A
Site Plan
13.12.16
Mackenzie Pronk Architects
13.12.16
DA-05 Revision A
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
13.12.16
Mackenzie Pronk Architects
13.12.16
DA-06 Revision A
Ground Floor Plan
13.12.16
Mackenzie Pronk Architects
13.12.16
DA-07 Revision A
First Floor Plan
13.12.16
Mackenzie Pronk Architects
13.12.16
DA-09 Revision A
Elevations and Schedule of Colours and Finishes
13.12.16
Mackenzie Pronk Architects
13.12.16
DA-10 Revision A
Elevations
13.12.16
Mackenzie Pronk Architects
13.12.16
DA-11 Revision A
Sections
13.12.16
Mackenzie Pronk Architects
13.12.16
786862S
BASIX Certificate
20.12.16
Outsource Ideas
20.12.16
786869S
BASIX Certificate
20.12.16
Outsource Ideas
20.12.16
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 2016/00269908 for the Torrens title subdivision of Lot 1 of Deposited Plan 958820, known as 27 Foreman Street, Tempe, into two new lots, the demolition of the existing house and other structures, but retention of the outbuilding wall on the rear boundary, and the construction of two new semi-detached houses is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
The applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as the result of the amendment of the development application pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of one dollar ($1).
…………….
S Dixon
Commissioner
269908.16 Dixon (C) (81.1 KB, pdf) 269908.16 Dixon (C) (81.1 KB, pdf)
269908.16 - Plans (9.14 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Ray Ters v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1024
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1024
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the scope of judicial review in administrative law, specifically in relation to the grounds upon which a decision could be challenged. The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, whether there had been any errors of law on the face of the record, and whether there had been a failure to observe procedural fairness. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council had properly exercised its discretion and whether the decision was supported by adequate reasons.
The court carefully examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the council's decision to proceed with the development was not unreasonable and was supported by proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria and material facts. The court held that the council had not erred in law and had adequately observed procedural fairness in reaching its decision. The plaintiff's arguments regarding procedural errors and natural justice were dismissed as lacking sufficient merit. Consequently, the court rejected Mr Ters' application for judicial review and upheld the council's decision to approve the development.
ORDERS: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review and ordered that the defendant, Inner West Council, retain its decision to proceed with the development project. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay the defendant'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.