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
-
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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld.
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
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)
- AGLC
- Samir Alzaidi v Campbelltown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1579
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1579
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.