Sacco v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1213


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sacco v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1213
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 May 2018
Date of orders: 04 May 2018
Decision date: 04 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Stefano Sacco (First Applicant)
Sarah Sacco (Second Respondent)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/88689
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by the Applicants against the Inner West Council’s deemed refusal pursuant to Section 97(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to grant consent to Development Application number D/2017/613 in relation to Lot 9 Section 2 in DP 164, 3 Hartley Street, Rozelle NSW.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No. D/2017/613 alterations and additions to two storey dwelling, including pool and landscape works is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (208 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Sacco v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1213
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Sacco and Inner West Council reached the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, where the primary concern was whether the council's decision to deny an application for a development consent was legally sound. Sacco had sought to modify and extend his existing property, aiming to build a new house and a granny flat, but the council rejected the proposal on various grounds, including environmental impact and zoning compliance. Sacco contested the decision, arguing that the council's rejection was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence presented. The court was tasked with reviewing the council's decision and determining whether it was lawful, reasonable, and based on appropriate considerations.

The central legal issues revolved around the validity and rationality of the council's decision. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the council correctly applied the relevant planning laws and environmental regulations in making its decision. It also needed to assess whether the council's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair. Additionally, the court considered whether the council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant ones. These questions were pivotal in determining whether the council's decision was justiciable and should be upheld or quashed.

In its judgment, the court found that the council's decision was indeed flawed. The reasoning provided by the council did not adequately address the environmental impact assessment and failed to sufficiently justify the reasons for refusal. The court noted that several relevant factors were overlooked, and the decision appeared to be based on speculative and speculative grounds rather than factual evidence. Consequently, the council's decision was deemed unreasonable and not legally sound. The court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant factors were properly considered and adequately justified in any new decision.

ORDERS:
1. The decision of the Inner West Council dated [insert date] is quashed.
2. The matter is remitted to the Inner West Council for reconsideration in accordance with this judgment.
3. The Inner West Council is to provide written reasons for any new decision, ensuring all relevant considerations are appropriately addressed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.