Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sayed Holdings Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2017] NSWLEC 1324 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 June 2017 Date of orders: 23 June 2017 Decision date: 23 June 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: Sayed Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Woollahra Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr A Boskovitz
Boskovitz & Associates (Applicant)
Ms M Hawley
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 54877/2017 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 appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA489/2016/1 is approved for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5 storey mixed use development comprising of 11 residential units, 3 commercial shops and basement parking for 21 cars on Lot 6, 7, 8 & 9 in DP 14000 known as 434 – 440 New South Head Road, Double Bay, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.
…………….
Commissioner Morris
54877.17 Morris (C) Annexure A (738 KB, pdf)
54877.17 Morris - Amended architectural plans - 434-440 New South Head Road Double Bay (3.43 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Sayed Holdings Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2017] NSWLEC 1324
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1324
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and justified. The appellant contended that the council failed to consider certain statutory factors and relied on irrelevant considerations. The respondent argued that the refusal was within its statutory powers and based on valid grounds, including the need to preserve the character of the local area.
The court examined the council's decision-making process and the factors considered in refusing the application. It found that the council had failed to properly consider several statutory factors and had made an error in relying on irrelevant considerations. The court held that the council's decision was not lawful, reasonable, or justified. The court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The council was directed to consider the statutory factors and address the errors identified by the court.
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.