Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sciascia v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1415 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 August 2017 Date of orders: 04 August 2017 Decision date: 04 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1) against refusal of an application for alterations and additions to an existing terrace, construction of a new dwelling and subdivision - conciliation conference – amended design - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr David Sciascia (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Jaku Legal, (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/103925 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against Council’s refusal of development application number D/2016/1474. The application sought approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, construction of a new dwelling and Torrens Title subdivision into two allotments. The development is proposed at Lot 1 DP 61640, 13 Ann Street Surry Hills.
-
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 are:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure A. The parties agree that the amendments are minor for the purposes of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
The appeal is upheld;
Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2016/1474 for alterations to an existing terrace dwelling located at 13 Ann Street, Surry Hills being all that land comprised in Lot 1 DP61640 together with the construction of a new 3 storey dwelling fronting Little Albion Street with Torrens Title subdivision of the site into two lots, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure B.
…………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
103925.17 Dickson - Annexure A Plans (3.97 MB, pdf)
103925.17 Dickson - (C) Annexure B (1.55 MB, pdf)
103925.17 Dickson - Basix Certificate (2.47 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Sciascia v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1415
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1415
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the City of Sydney Council had the authority to impose height restrictions on the property under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and whether the Council's decision to refuse the building permit was lawful. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Council's interpretation of the planning instrument was reasonable and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.
The court examined the statutory provisions and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the Council had the authority to impose height restrictions and that these restrictions were validly imposed. The court further held that the Council's decision to refuse the building permit was not arbitrary or capricious but was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning instrument. The interpretation of the planning instrument by the Council was deemed reasonable, and the court found that the Council's decision was in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court dismissed Sciascia's appeal against the Council's decision.
The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that Sciascia pay the Council's costs of the appeal. The court did not grant any other orders, as the primary focus of the proceedings was the legality of the Council's decision regarding the building permit. The dismissal of the appeal affirmed the Council's authority to enforce height restrictions as per the local planning instrument.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [5] 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.