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:
Solicitors:
Mr S. Kondilios solicitor (Applicant)
Mr M. Bonanno solicitor (Respondent)
Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/187023
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, 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 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.
The appeal is upheld.
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
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.
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)
- AGLC
- Robert Dening v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1639
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1639
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.