Ray Ters v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1024


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

  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 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

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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)

Details
AGLC
Ray Ters v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1024
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1024
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ray Ters versus Inner West Council, the matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a complaint by the plaintiff, Mr Ray Ters, regarding a decision made by the Inner West Council, a local government authority. Mr Ters had objected to a particular development project within the council's jurisdiction, and subsequently sought judicial review of the council's decision to proceed with the development. The primary focus of the case was on whether the council had acted lawfully and reasonably in approving the development, and whether there had been any procedural errors or breaches of natural justice in the decision-making process.

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.