Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Steele v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1000 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 & 30 November 2015 Date of orders: 05 January 2016 Decision date: 05 January 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Oliver Steel (Applicant)
City of Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Ms K Morrin, City of Sydney Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10664 of 2015 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, 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 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.
…………….
Acting Commissioner Smithson
10664 of 2015 s34 Smithson (12.5 KB, pdf)
10664 of 2015 (C) Smithson (288 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Steele v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1000
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1000
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues at the core of the dispute were whether the Council had properly exercised its discretion in refusing consent to the development application, and if the Council had adhered to the relevant statutory provisions and applicable planning policies. The applicant contended that the refusal was unjust and not in line with the development plan, while the Council argued that the refusal was justified based on the statutory grounds and policies in place.
The court found that the Council had indeed exercised its discretion appropriately and had adhered to the statutory provisions. The court concluded that the Council had sufficient grounds to refuse consent, as the development application did not align with the development plan and was not in the best interest of the local community. The court further determined that the Council had not acted outside the bounds of its statutory authority or failed to consider the merits of the application. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Council's decision to refuse consent was upheld.
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.