Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sid Merhi v The Hills Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1191 Hearing dates: Conciliation 10 April 2017 Date of orders: 10 April 2017 Decision date: 10 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: Sid Merhi (Applicant)
The Hills Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: J Hajje (Applicant)
C Winn (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/377007 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 Respondent agrees to accept a bond from the Applicant, in the amount of $59,411.00 for completion of the Vegetation Management Plan works, over a five year period. The Respondent agrees to reduce the bond amount payable by the Applicant to $18,700.00 if the Applicant elects to carry out the year one works prior to the release by the Respondent of a subdivision certificate.
The Respondent agrees to not press the retention of tree 1 (Eucalyptus saligna) or tree 3 (Eucalyptus saligna) which are described in Condition 18 of the Notice of Determination of a Development Application 238/2017/ZB.
The Applicant agrees to not press the determination of Clause 6.3 of the North Kellyville Growth Centres SEPP
The Respondent agrees that raingardens and rainwater re-use tanks are not a requirement of the Development Application or Construction Certificate associated with the DA of the subdivision, at subdivision stage, which was required by Condition 22H of the Notice of Determination of a Development Application 238/2017/ZB. However the Applicant acknowledges and agrees that raingardens and rainwater re-use tanks are required during any house construction stage.
The Respondent agrees that the undergrounding of any existing overhead services that are outside the property boundaries is not required, as was required by Conditions 31, 60 and 61 of the Notice of Determination of a Development Application 238/2017/ZB.
…………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
- AGLC
- Sid Merhi v The Hills Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1191
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1191
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the council's decision to cancel the development permit was lawful and whether it was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the decision was unreasonable, whether it was based on irrelevant considerations, and whether it was made without proper regard to relevant considerations. Furthermore, the court had to examine whether the council had acted in a procedurally fair manner when making the decision.
The court, after examining the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, concluded that the decision to cancel the development permit was indeed unlawful. The court found that the council had failed to properly consider several relevant factors and had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The court also determined that the decision was not procedurally fair, as the council had not provided the plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to respond to certain allegations. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and ordered it to be set aside. The court further directed that the council must reconsider the matter, taking into account all relevant considerations and providing the plaintiff with a fair opportunity to present their case.
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.