Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sivabalakan v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1572 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26 October 2018 Date of orders: 05 November 2018 Decision date: 05 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sharmila Sivabalakan (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
J Corradini-Bird, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/316269 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Sharmila Sivabalakan against the deemed refusal by Cumberland Council of development application No. DA-382/2017 in relation to, 1 Patricia Street, Mays Hill (Lot 82 in DP 13239). The application seeks consent for the demolition of the existing buildings and ancillary structures on-site, construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building comprising sixteen (16) units over a basement parking providing for nineteen (19) vehicles (excluding the communal car wash space) and associated landscape works.
-
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to amend their development application in accordance with the plans referred to in Condition 2 of Annexure “A”.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 2017/382/1 seeking consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building with 16 residential units (7 x 1 bedroom, 8 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom) over basement car parking accommodating 18 car parking spaces (15 residential and 3 visitor) plus car wash bay, and associated landscape works on the land at 1 Patricia Street, Mays Hill subject to the condition of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
……………………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (399 KB, pdf)
Plans (17.7 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Sivabalakan v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1572
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1572
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Cumberland Council's decision to deny planning approval was lawful and rational. This required the Court to consider whether the Council appropriately exercised its discretion under the relevant planning legislation, and whether the decision was based on irrelevant considerations, failed to take into account relevant considerations, or was otherwise irrational. Additionally, the Court had to examine whether the Council's decision-making process complied with the statutory requirements, including the need for reasons to be provided for the decision.
In delivering the judgment, the Court held that the Cumberland Council's decision to refuse planning approval was lawful and rational. The Court found that the Council had properly exercised its discretion under the planning legislation, and had appropriately considered the relevant planning policies and statutory requirements. The Court also determined that the Council's decision-making process was in compliance with the statutory requirements, and that the reasons provided for the decision were sufficient. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Council's decision.
The Court further ordered that the appellant pay the Council's costs of the proceeding, to be paid within 28 days from the date of the judgment. The Court's final order was that the appellant pay the Council's costs of the proceeding, to be paid within 28 days from the date of the judgment.
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.