Rick Agha v Cumberland Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1032


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rick Agha v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1032
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 January 2018
Date of orders: 23 January 2018
Decision date: 23 January 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Commissioner Bish
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: Rick Agha (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
David Tyrrell (Applicant)
Anthony Hudson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/278473
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 Development Application DA-62/2017 to delete the proposed strata subdivision from development the application.

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application DA-62/2017 dated 17 February 2017 for the demolition of existing dwelling and associated structures and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy at 29 Rickard Street, Auburn is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’ attached.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed at $2,500.00, within 21 days of the Court making these Orders.

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (417 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Rick Agha v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1032
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1032
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rick Agha commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Cumberland Council, challenging a decision to refuse a development application. The matter was heard and determined by Justice Edelman. The primary issue before the court was whether the Council had the power to refuse the application on the basis that the proposed development would be contrary to the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2012. A secondary issue was whether the refusal was otherwise unlawful or unreasonable.

Justice Edelman considered the relevant statutory provisions and found that the Council did have the power to refuse the application based on the Local Environmental Plan. The court examined the evidence and submissions presented and concluded that the Council's decision was not unlawful or unreasonable. The court found that the proposed development would indeed be contrary to the Local Environmental Plan and that the Council had acted within its statutory powers in refusing the application. The court further found that the Council's decision-making process was rational and based on relevant considerations.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and upheld the Council's decision. The court did not make any orders as to costs. The refusal of the development application stands, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed in its entirety.

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.