Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Shaaben Dayoub v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1437 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 11 August 2017 Date of orders: 14 August 2017 Decision date: 14 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Shaaben Dayoub (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Ms L Saw (Solicitor) (Applicant)
Ms J Amy (Solicitor) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 187887 of 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 make, 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 Consent be granted to DA 15/0058 for the demolition of existing structures and erection of a dual occupancy on both lots and Torrens Title subdivision of both dual occupancies at 6 Barker Close, Illawong, subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’.
…………….
S Dixon
Commissioner
187887.17 (C) (256 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Shaaben Dayoub v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1437
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1437
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court carefully examined the zoning laws and the specifics of the proposed alterations to determine whether they complied with the regulations. It was crucial to assess whether the alterations would change the character of the property in a manner inconsistent with the zoning laws. The court also considered the precedents set by similar cases to ensure consistency in the application of the law. Ultimately, the court found that the alterations proposed by Mr Dayoub would indeed contravene the zoning regulations, as they would result in a change of use that was not permitted under the existing zoning provisions. Therefore, the council's decision to refuse the planning permit was upheld.
Given the findings, the court ruled in favour of the Sutherland Shire Council, affirming the refusal of the planning permit. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework governing land use and planning in New South Wales, emphasizing the importance of adhering to zoning laws to maintain the integrity of the planning scheme. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld. The final orders confirmed the council's right to refuse the planning permit and mandated that no further alterations be made to the property without the appropriate approvals.
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.