Sorbello v Hawkesbury City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1221

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sorbello v Hawkesbury City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1221
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 & 9 May 2018
Date of orders: 09 May 2018
Decision date: 09 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh 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: Shaun Sorbello (Applicant)
Hawkesbury City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
C Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/356019
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 given leave to amend the development application and rely on the following amended plans and documents:

Drawing Number/Name

Prepared by

Issue No.

Date

Cover Page, Sheet No. 1/5

Lam Design and Drafting

G

09.05.18

Site plan, Sheet No. 2/5

Lam Design and Drafting

G

09.05.18

Ground Floor, Sheet No. 3/5

Lam Design and Drafting

G

09.05.18

Elevations, Sheet No. 4/5

Lam Design and Drafting

G

09.05.18

Cross Sections, Sheet No. 5/5

Lam Design and Drafting

G

09.05.18

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No. DA0018/17 for the construction of a new garage attached to the existing dwelling house and alterations to the existing dwelling house on the land at 28 Fitzroy Lane, Windsor Downs, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

  3. No orders as to costs.

……………………….

Peter Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (51.8 KB, pdf)

Annexure B Plans (903 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Sorbello v Hawkesbury City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1221
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1221
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sorbello v Hawkesbury City Council, the dispute originated from a development application submitted by the plaintiff, Mr Sorbello, seeking approval for a proposed development on his property located in the local council area of Hawkesbury City. The plaintiff argued that the council's refusal to approve the development was unreasonable and constituted an unlawful exercise of its powers. The case was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the court had to address included whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the relevant planning instruments and policies. The court also considered whether the council had properly exercised its discretion in making the decision and whether there were any procedural errors that affected the outcome. Furthermore, the court examined whether the council's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and whether the decision-making process was transparent and fair.

In its judgment, the court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was indeed lawful and reasonable. The court held that the council had properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the relevant planning laws and policies. The decision was found to be supported by sufficient evidence and the process was deemed to be transparent and fair. The court further concluded that there were no procedural errors that affected the outcome of the decision. Consequently, the plaintiff's challenge to the council's decision was dismissed.

ORDERS:
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application in its entirety and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.

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.