Samir Alzaidi v Campbelltown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1579


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Samir Alzaidi v Campbelltown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1579
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 September and 6 October 2017
Date of orders: 13 October 2017
Decision date: 13 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Samir Alzaidi (Applicant)
Campbelltown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/148053
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Leave is granted to rely on the following documents that are the subject of Development Application No. DA-2750/2015/DA-BH:

Plan No.

Plan Name

Issue

Prepared by

Date

AR-1

Site and Roof Plan

Council submission

NK Architect

25/09/2017

AR-2

Existing Floor Plans

Council Submission

NK Architect

25/09/2017

AR-3

Ground Floor Plan

Council Submission

NK Architect

25/09/2017

AR-4

Elevations

Council Submission

NK Architect

25/09/2017

AR-5

Sections

Council Submission

NK Architect

25/09/2017

AR-6

Accessible WC and Shower Detail

Council Submission

NK Architect

25/09/2017

AR-7

Accessible WC and Shower Detail 2

Council Submission

NK Architect

25/09/2017

AR-8

Site Analysis

Council Submission

NK Architect

25/09/2017

AR-9

Stormwater Concept

Council Submission

NK Architect

25/09/2017

  1. Development Application No. DA-2750/2015/DA-BH for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling for us as a boarding house containing 9 boarding rooms, 2 communal living areas, 3 bathrooms, laundry facilities, parking and retention of the existing swimming pool at Lot A in Deposited Plan 401947, otherwise known as 21 Allman Street, Campbelltown, is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court of NSW

Annexure A (C) (270 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Samir Alzaidi v Campbelltown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1579
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1579
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Samir Alzaidi and Campbelltown City Council. Alzaidi, a resident and property owner in the Campbelltown local government area, challenged a decision by the council to deny him a permit to construct a carport on his property. The dispute was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue for the court was whether the council's decision to refuse the permit was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and policy guidelines.

In determining the validity of the council's decision, the court had to consider whether the council exercised its powers appropriately, whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair, and whether the decision was supported by substantial reasons. The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to assess if the council's decision was based on legitimate and relevant grounds. The court also scrutinised the council's interpretation and application of the relevant planning and zoning laws and policies. The outcome hinged on whether the council's decision was open to challenge on the grounds of irrationality, procedural unfairness, or failure to consider relevant matters.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse the permit was not irrational and was adequately supported by the evidence and relevant policy considerations. The court determined that the council had exercised its powers appropriately and had followed a fair decision-making process. The reasons provided by the council were found to be relevant and substantial, addressing the key planning and zoning issues pertinent to the proposed carport. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision and dismissed Alzaidi's challenge.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the council's decision to deny the permit was lawful and valid. The court's judgment upheld the council's right to refuse the permit based on the statutory and policy framework governing land use and development in the local government area.

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.