Sangari v Wollondilly Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1091


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sangari v Wollondilly Council [2017] NSWLEC 1091
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 February 2017
Date of orders: 24 February 2017
Decision date: 24 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: Ghazi Sangari (Applicant)
Wollondilly Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr C McFadzean
Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr C Campbell
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 153833/2016
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, 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 applicant is granted leave to amend the development application by relying on the following plans:

Drawing title

Prepared By

Reference

Date

Plan of Subdivision

Paul Brandon

Survey Reference: 150901 DP Rev G

As stamped approved

Landscape Street Tree Plan

HLS Pty Ltd

L01

18/8/2016

Coversheet

Martens

PS02-A000 Rev G

5/12/2016

Development overview plan

Martens

PS02-A050 Rev E

5/12/2016

Town planning plan

Martens

PS02-A400 Rev D

29/11/2016

Sediment & erosion control and demolition plan

Martens

PS02-B300 Rev D

29/11/2016

Sediment & erosion control details

Martens

PS02-B310 Rev G

31/8/2016

Earthworks plan

Martens

PS02-C100 Rev E

5/12/2016

Earthworks cut and fill plan

Martens

PS02-C600 Rev E

5/12/2016

Roadworks plan

Martens

PS02-D100 Rev E

5/12/2016

Proposed road longitudinal & typical section

Martens

PS02-D200 Rev D

29/11/2016

Drainage plan

Martens

PS02-E100 Rev E

5/12/2016

Basin detailed plan

Martens

PS02-E200 Rev E

5/12/2016

Drainage typical sections & details

Martens

PS02-E201 Rev B

5/12/2016

Drainage longitudinal sections

Martens

PS02-E300 Rev D

5/12/2016

Drainage longitudinal sections

Martens

PS02-E301 Rev C

29/11/2016

Drainage longitudinal sections

Martens

PS02-E302 Rev C

29/11/2016

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application No. 010.2015.00000845.001 for demolition of a dwelling and shed, decommissioning of a dam, subdivision of one lot into thirty five (35) lots and the construction of a road at Lot 1 DP 1222156, 20 Macquarie Place, Tahmoor is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $2000 within 28 days.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

153833.16 (C) Annexure A (353 KB, pdf)

153833.16 Morris - Plans (7.94 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Sangari v Wollondilly Council [2017] NSWLEC 1091
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1091
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sangari v Wollondilly Council, the plaintiff, Mr. Sangari, challenged a decision made by the Wollondilly Council regarding the approval of a development application for a property. The matter was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Mr. Sangari claimed that the Council had acted unlawfully in denying his application for development consent, arguing that the decision was based on incorrect information and was therefore not in accordance with the relevant statutory and regulatory frameworks.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision was made in accordance with the law and whether there were errors in the application of the relevant legislative provisions and planning policies. The court needed to determine whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair, whether the decision was based on relevant considerations, and whether the decision was within the powers of the Council.

The court found that the Council's decision was indeed flawed and that the process leading to the denial of the development consent was not procedurally fair. The court held that the Council had failed to properly consider all relevant information and had placed undue reliance on certain information that was subsequently found to be incorrect. Additionally, the court determined that the decision did not comply with the statutory requirements and planning policies that applied to the case. Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The court ordered that the Wollondilly Council reconsider Mr. Sangari's development application in light of the court's findings. The Council was directed to ensure that its decision-making process complied with all relevant legal and procedural requirements, including proper consideration of all material information and adherence to statutory and policy frameworks. The court did not grant any specific orders regarding the substantive outcome of the development application but emphasised that the reconsideration must be conducted lawfully and fairly.

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.