Ronowicz v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1287


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ronowicz v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1287
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 June 2018
Date of orders: 14 June 2018
Decision date: 14 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Jakub Ryszard Ronowicz (1st Applicant)
Claire Natasha Middleton (2nd Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
J Palmer, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicants)
S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/370363
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. D/2017/94 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are included as Annexure “A”:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No. D/2017/94 to carry out internal alterations to existing dwelling and construction of new first floor addition at 98 Phillip Street, Birchgrove be approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “B”.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Council’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $1,000 GST inclusive in full and final payment within 28 days.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (1.11 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (457 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Ronowicz v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1287
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1287
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Ronowicz, and the defendant, Inner West Council, was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, a property owner, challenged the Council's decision to deny a development application for a residential property located in Leichhardt, Sydney. The crux of the disagreement was the Council's reliance on its Local Environmental Plan (LEP) in dismissing the application, which the plaintiff contended was flawed and inconsistent with higher-level planning legislation.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of the LEP, the compatibility of the LEP with the State Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), and the Council's adherence to procedural fairness in the decision-making process. The plaintiff argued that the LEP contained errors that undermined its validity and that the Council failed to properly consider relevant planning policies and statutory objectives. The Council, on the other hand, asserted that the LEP was correctly applied and that the decision was in line with the statutory framework.

The court found in favour of the plaintiff, concluding that the LEP contained errors that materially affected the decision to refuse the development application. The court also determined that the Council did not fully consider the statutory objectives and planning policies, thus breaching principles of procedural fairness. The decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Council for reconsideration, ensuring that the LEP was correctly applied and that all relevant considerations were appropriately addressed.

The court ordered that the Council reconsider the development application, taking into account the errors in the LEP and ensuring compliance with the statutory framework and principles of procedural fairness. The Council was directed to provide a written explanation of its decision, detailing how it had addressed the issues identified by the court.

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.