Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Rompies v Leichhardt Council [2016] NSWLEC 1082 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 March 2016 Date of orders: 09 March 2016 Decision date: 09 March 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Tuor C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Susie Rompies (Applicant)
Leichhardt Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr A Whealy, Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr M Bonanno, Leichhardt Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 11092 of 2015 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, 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.
…………………….
Annelise Tuor
Commissioner
11092 of 2015 Tuor (09.03.16) (s34O) (70.8 KB, pdf)
11092 of 2015 Tuor (C) (310 KB, pdf)
11092 of 2015 Tuor _amended plans (246 KB, pdf)
11092 of 2015 Tuor_15-138D1B (216 KB, pdf)
11092 of 2015 Tuor_26 High St L-01 (391 KB, pdf)
11092 of 2015 Tuor_26 High St L-02 (1.72 MB, pdf)
11092 of 2015 Tuor_Certificate 20160303 (49.1 KB, pdf)
11092 of 2015 Tuor_DA01 - 20.08.15 (885 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Rompies v Leichhardt Council [2016] NSWLEC 1082
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1082
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had acted lawfully and reasonably in denying the development application, and whether the appellant's proposal was compatible with the surrounding environment and the applicable planning controls. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the appellant had demonstrated a need for the proposed development, and whether there were any grounds for the council's decision that could be considered invalid.
In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the relevant planning policies and legislative requirements. The court found that the council had not acted unreasonably or unlawfully in denying the application. The decision was based on the fact that the proposed development did not align with the surrounding character of the area, which was primarily residential. Additionally, the court found that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient need for the development, and that the council's concerns about noise and traffic were valid. Therefore, the court upheld the council's decision and dismissed the appellant's appeal.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal brought by Rompies against the decision of Leichhardt Council be dismissed, and that the costs of the appeal be paid by the appellant.
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.