Succar v Georges River Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1246

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Succar & anor v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1246
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 6 June 2016
Date of orders: 15 June 2016
Decision date: 15 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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:

Deab-Anthony Succar (First Applicant)
Sally Succar (Second Applicant)

  Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Solicitors:
Mr P Duffy
Duffy Law Group (Applicant)

  Ms A Berry
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00151268
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, 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 appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to DA 2015/0129 for the proposed dual occupancy development at 8 Cooloongatta Road, Beverly Hills (being folio identifier 224/13496) subject to the conditions set out in Annexure ‘A’.

  3. A copy of the plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’ are exhibited at Annexure ‘B’.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

151268.16 - Annexure A - Amended on 3 August 2016 (142 KB, pdf)

151268.16_Architectural plans (2.73 MB, pdf)

151268.16_Landscape Plan_D (418 KB, pdf)

151268.16_Shadows_Composite (1.41 MB, pdf)

Amendments

03 August 2016 - Annexure A - Amended on 3 August 2016

Details
AGLC
Succar v Georges River Council [2016] NSWLEC 1246
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Succar v Georges River Council, the dispute arose from a decision made by the Georges River Council to deny a planning application for the development of a residential property. The applicant, Mr. Succar, sought to challenge the council's decision through the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the council's decision was lawful and whether the applicant's rights under the Development Act 2006 were violated. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the council correctly exercised its discretion and followed the required legislative and procedural mandates when it rejected the planning application.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the council's powers and the procedural requirements it needed to adhere to when making planning decisions. The legal issues included whether the council provided adequate reasons for its decision, whether it considered all relevant factors, and whether the decision was made in accordance with the relevant planning instruments, including the Local Environment Plan. The court also considered whether the applicant had been denied procedural fairness, as claimed, and whether there was any evidence of bias or improper conduct by the council.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the council had not adequately justified its decision to reject the planning application. The court identified several deficiencies in the council's reasoning process, including a failure to properly consider the merits of the application and an inadequate explanation of the reasons for the decision. The court also found that the applicant had been denied procedural fairness, as the council did not provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to critical issues raised during the assessment process. As a result, the court concluded that the council's decision was unlawful and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all legal and procedural requirements were properly addressed.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the council's decision to refuse the planning application was invalid and of no legal effect. The court mandated that the council reconsider the application, ensuring that all relevant factors were properly considered and that adequate reasons were provided. The court also directed the council to afford the applicant procedural fairness by allowing them to respond to any new issues that might arise during the reconsideration process.

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.