Scionti v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1119


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Scionti v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1119
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 January 2018
Date of orders: 08 March 2018
Decision date: 08 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Terrace House; remedial restorative works; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
BUILDING CERTIFICATE: floor and roof slab; ; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Alex Scionti (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms. A Spizzo, Landerer and Company (Applicant)
Mr. M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/263523 and 2017/252285
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Inner West Council of a development application that sought to undertake remedial and restorative works following construction or works that were not in accordance with a previous consent. Concurrently the applicant has appealed Councils refusal of a building certificate that seeks to regularise the first floor slab and roof slab. The subject site is located at 80 Darling Street Balmain.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 rely upon the following amended plans and documents:

Plan Reference

Drawn By

Dated

Drawing No.: DA00

Proposed Site and Roof Plan

Paul Davies Architects

31 January 2017

Drawing No.: DA01

Floor Plans

Paul Davies Architects

29 March 2017

Drawing No.: DA02

Existing and Proposed Elevations

Paul Davies Architects

29 March 2017

Drawing No.: DA03

Existing and Proposed Sections

Paul Davies Architects

29 March 2017

Drawing No.: DA04

Proposed Colour Schedule

Paul Davies Architects

24 January 2017

Document Title

Prepared By

Dated

Identification Survey Certificate

Landmark Surveys

26 July 2016

Structural Certificate

Structural Design Solutions

23 March 2017

Structural Engineers Report

ACOR Consultants

21 February 2018

DA Cover Letter

Paul Davies Architects

30 January 2017

Legal Advice re: Owner’s Consent for Building Certificate

Michael Staunton of Counsel

23 February 2018

Legal Advice re: Owner’s Consent for DA

Michael Staunton of Counsel

23 February 2018

  1. The appeals are upheld.

  2. Development application No. D/2017/41 for consent to carry out alterations and additions to the existing building at 80 Darling Street, Balmain is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

  3. The Building Certificate Application No. BC/30/2016 is approved.

  4. The applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to s8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 of $3,000.00 within 28 days of these orders being made.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (155 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Scionti v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1119
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1119
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scionti v Inner West Council involved a dispute between Mr Scionti and the Inner West Council regarding the Council's decision to refuse development approval for a proposed building on Mr Scionti's land. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mr Scionti sought judicial review of the Council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and based on irrelevant considerations.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the Council's decision was open to judicial review and, if so, whether it was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and common law principles. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the decision was lawful, whether the Council had taken into account all relevant considerations and disregarded irrelevant ones, and whether the decision was so unreasonable as to be unjust.

The Court found that the Council's decision was subject to judicial review and was indeed unlawful. It was determined that the Council had failed to consider all relevant environmental factors and had given undue weight to irrelevant considerations. The decision was therefore quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings. The Court emphasised the importance of adherence to statutory requirements and the need for decision-makers to consider all relevant factors before reaching a conclusion.

In light of the findings, the Court made several orders, including quashing the Council's decision, remitting the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, and ordering the Council to pay Mr Scionti's costs of the proceeding. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural fairness and the need for decision-makers to carefully consider all relevant factors in their decision-making processes.

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.