Steele v Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1489


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Steele v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1489
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 29 September 2016
Date of orders: 25 October 2016
Decision date: 25 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Oliver Steele (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
V. Conomos, solicitor (Applicant)
M. Flick, solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/162124

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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The application is granted leave to rely on the amended plans listed at condition (1)(a) of Annexure ‘A’.

  3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as agreed or assessed pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  4. Application D/2015/1725 for demolition of the existing building, tree removal, and construction of a new four storey residential flat building comprising 10 units with basement car parking is approved subject to the conditions annexed and marked “A”

…………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner

162124.16 - Annexure A (250 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Steele v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1489
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1489
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Steele, brought an action against the defendant, the Council of the City of Sydney, contesting the council's decision to deny a development application for a commercial building on land the plaintiff owned. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to overturn the council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and should be quashed. The council defended its decision, asserting that it had followed proper procedure and exercised its discretion lawfully.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the council had acted unreasonably in denying the development application and whether the decision was flawed to the extent that it warranted judicial intervention. The court had to determine whether the council's decision was based on an error of law, an error of fact, or was otherwise irrational or beyond the scope of its powers. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in the council's decision-making process.

The court examined the council's decision-making process and the evidence upon which it was based. It found that the council had considered relevant factors and had not acted irrationally or beyond its statutory powers. The court held that the council's decision was not flawed and that it had not made an error of law or fact. The plaintiff's argument that the decision was unreasonable was dismissed. The court concluded that the council's decision was lawful and should be upheld.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application be dismissed and that the council's decision to deny the development application be upheld. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceedings.

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.