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
-
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, 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 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
The appeal is upheld.
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’.
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)
- AGLC
- Sangari v Wollondilly Council [2017] NSWLEC 1091
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1091
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.