Sipos v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1092

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sipos v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1092
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 January 2018 and 20 February 2018
Date of orders: 27 February 2018
Decision date: 27 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations and additions to an existing three storey commercial building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Elizabeth Sipos (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms Marcia Doheny, Allens (Applicant)
Mr A Simpson, City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/248174
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development application No. D/2017/384 for alterations and additions to an existing three storey commercial building to include one additional floor at 68 Sophia Street, Surry Hills.

  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. Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1(a) of the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2017/384 for alterations and additions to an existing three storey commercial building to include one additional floor at 68 Sophia Street, Surry Hills, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

  4. The Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs under s.97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or as assessed.

……………………….

Graham Brown

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (91.6 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Sipos v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1092
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1092
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sipos v The Council of the City of Sydney, which was determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, involved a dispute between a property owner and the local council regarding the interpretation of a local environmental plan (LEP). The plaintiff, Sipos, sought to develop his property but encountered opposition from the defendant, the City of Sydney Council, which objected to the development on the basis of the LEP. The plaintiff challenged the council’s decision, arguing that the LEP did not apply to his property and that the council's objection was therefore invalid.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the LEP applied to the plaintiff's property and, if so, whether the council's objection was justified. This necessitated a detailed examination of the LEP's provisions and the extent of the council's authority under the relevant planning legislation. The court also had to determine the appropriate legal tests for assessing whether the LEP applied to the property in question.

In its judgment, the court carefully examined the language of the LEP and the specific zoning provisions applicable to the property. The court held that the LEP did apply to the plaintiff's property and that the council's objection was therefore valid. The court found that the LEP's zoning provisions were clear and unambiguous, and that the property in question fell within the scope of the LEP. The court also determined that the council's decision was within its statutory authority and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the LEP was inapplicable or that the council had acted unreasonably. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding that the council's objection was based on a proper interpretation of the LEP and that the plaintiff's development plans were not in accordance with the plan's requirements.

The court’s decision was definitive, and the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the council’s costs of the proceedings, and it clarified that the LEP’s provisions were binding on the property. This ruling underscored the importance of adhering to local environmental plans and the council's role in enforcing them.

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.