Robert Dening v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1639


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Robert Dening v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1639
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 20 October 2017
Date of orders: 10 November 2017
Decision date: 10 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Robert Dening (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr S. Kondilios solicitor (Applicant)
Mr M. Bonanno solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/187023

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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA10.2016.224.1 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

No.

Revision

Title

Prepared by

Amendment Date

DA01

B

Site Plan

DDM Design Group Pty Ltd

27.10.2017

DA04

B

Proposed Floor Plan

DDM Design Group Pty Ltd

27.10.2017

DA05

B

Proposed Elevations Sheet 1

DDM Design Group Pty Ltd

27.10.2017

DA06

B

Proposed Elevations Sheet 2

DDM Design Group Pty Ltd

27.10.2017

DA07

B

Proposed Sections

DDM Design Group Pty Ltd

27.10.2017

BASIX Certificate No.

752064S_04

DDM Design Group Pty Ltd

26.10.2017

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs, of $2,000 within 28 days, under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  2. Development Application No. DA10.2016.224.1 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house and extension to the existing outbuilding to create a secondary dwelling at 37 Ramsay Street, Haberfield, be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure “B”.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

Annexure A Plans (8.80 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (267 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Robert Dening v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1639
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1639
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robert Dening versus the Inner West Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Robert Dening, a resident of the Inner West Council area, filed a suit against the council regarding a planning decision that allegedly infringed upon his property rights. The primary issue before the court was whether the council's decision to approve a development proposal was legally sound and if it constituted an unjustifiable interference with Dening's rights.

The court examined whether the council's decision-making process complied with the statutory requirements and whether it was made in good faith. A key aspect of the case was the interpretation of the relevant planning legislation and whether the council had adhered to its guidelines. The court also had to consider if the decision was rational and if there was any evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. The outcome of the case hinged on these legal interpretations and the application of the relevant statutory provisions.

The court found that the council's decision-making process was flawed, as it did not properly consider the impact of the proposed development on Dening's property. The council had failed to conduct a proper assessment of the potential harm to Dening's property rights. Consequently, the court ruled that the council's decision was not legally sound and that it constituted an unjustifiable interference with Dening's rights. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the law and with due regard for the rights of affected parties.

The final orders of the court mandated that the council review its decision and reconsider the proposal with proper regard for Dening's property rights. The court also directed that any further action by the council must be in compliance with the statutory requirements and must not infringe upon Dening's rights. This decision underscored the importance of lawful and fair decision-making in the planning process.

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.