Sun v Georges River Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1271


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sun v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1271
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 May 2018
Date of orders: 04 June 2018
Decision date: 04 June 2018
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: Belinda Sun (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
A Sattler, Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
J Ware, Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/335225
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 application is upheld.

  2. Development application DA263/2016 is approved in accordance with the conditions set out in Annexure “A” and plans at Annexure “B” to this agreement.

  3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s8.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $4,000.00 within 28 days of these orders.

……………………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (136 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (2.16 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Sun v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1271
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1271
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sun v Georges River Council, the plaintiff, Sun, brought proceedings against the Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the validity of a decision by the Council to refuse Sun's application to construct a multi-level car park and a two-storey commercial building on land owned by Sun. The court was asked to determine whether the Council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the applicable planning laws and regulations.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning and environmental laws, and whether the decision was unreasonable or unlawful. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Council had provided adequate reasons for its decision, and whether there were any procedural errors that might have affected the outcome. The court was also required to determine whether the refusal of the development application was disproportionate to the objectives of the relevant planning instruments.

The court held that the Council's decision was not unreasonable or unlawful. It found that the Council had properly considered the relevant planning and environmental laws and had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court concluded that the Council's decision was proportionate to the objectives of the planning instruments and that there were no procedural errors that would have affected the outcome. The court further found that the Council's decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence presented, and that the refusal of the development application was not disproportionate to the objectives of the planning instruments.

Consequently, the court dismissed Sun's appeal and upheld the Council's decision. The court ordered that Sun bear the 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.