Salim v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1532


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Salim v The Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1532
Hearing dates:4 October 2016
Date of orders: 11 November 2016
Decision date: 11 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; alterations and additions to an existing building and use as a boarding house; 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: Joseph Salim (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Rigg, solicitor (Applicant)
Ms R Bullmore, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Peter R Rigg (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00221551
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER; This an appeal against the refusal of Development Application D/2016/734 for alterations and additions to an existing building and use as a boarding house at 660 Crown Street Surry Hills.

  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, 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 Applicant is granted to leave to amend its application to rely on the following plans and documents:

Drawing Number

Drawing Name

Date

A-2.01 ‘G’

Site/Roof Plan

25 October 2016

A-2.02 ‘G’

Site Analysis Plan

25 October 2016

A-3.01 ‘G’

Ground Floor Plan

25 October 2016

A-3.02 ‘G’

First Floor Plan

25 October 2016

A-3.03 ‘G’

Second Floor Plan

25 October 2016

A-4.01 ‘G’

West Elevation

25 October 2016

A-4.02 ‘G’

East Elevation

25 October 2016

A-4.03 ‘G’

North Elevation

25 October 2016

A-4.04 ‘G’

South Elevation

25 October 2016

A-5.01 ‘G’

Section AA

25 October 2016

A-7.01 ‘F’

Typical Laundry Scheme

25 October 2016

A-7.02 ‘F’

Typical Wardrobe Scheme

25 October 2016

A-7.03 ‘G’

Typical Kitchen Scheme

25 October 2016

  1. The applicant is to pay Council's costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $2,000.00.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Approval is granted to D/2016/734, subject to the condition in Annexure A, for alterations and additions to existing building, including ground and first floor rear extensions, first floor communal rear terrace, front dormer roof extension, new shop front, and use of first and second floors as a four room boarding house.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

221551.16 - Annxure A (81.2 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Salim v The Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1532
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1532
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Salim v The Council of the City of Sydney involved the applicant, Mr. Salim, who sought to challenge the decision of the City of Sydney Council to revoke his development permit. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Mr. Salim, a property developer, had his permit revoked by the council due to alleged non-compliance with planning regulations. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to revoke the development permit was lawful, reasonable, and based on appropriate evidence. The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was supported by sufficient grounds and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the manner in which the decision was made.

The court examined the procedural fairness of the council's decision-making process, considering whether Mr. Salim had been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations of non-compliance. It also evaluated the substantive merits of the council's decision, assessing whether the evidence supported the finding that Mr. Salim had indeed breached the planning regulations. The court determined that the council had acted within its statutory powers and that the decision to revoke the permit was both lawful and reasonable. The evidence presented by the council was deemed sufficient to justify the revocation, and no procedural unfairness was found in the decision-making process.

Based on its findings, the court dismissed Mr. Salim's application, upholding the council's decision to revoke the development permit. The court's reasoning centred on the council's adherence to procedural fairness and the sufficiency of the evidence to support its decision. The court concluded that the council had acted reasonably and in accordance with the law. As a result, the council's decision to revoke the development permit was affirmed, and the application was dismissed.

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.