Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Touma v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1455 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 August 2017 Date of orders: 22 August 2017 Decision date: 22 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Joseph Touma (Applicant)
Canterbury Bankstown Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr M. Staunton barrister (Applicant)
Mr C. Zoppo solicitor (Respondent)
Lionheart Lawyers (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/109951
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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application 43/2017 for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park, is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.
…………….
Commissioner O’Neill
109951.17 O'Neill (C) (151 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Touma v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1455
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1455
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory framework under which the council operates and assessed whether the decision-making process adhered to the relevant legislative requirements. The court also considered the merits of the application itself, including whether the proposed development complied with the relevant planning and zoning laws. Furthermore, the court evaluated the council's consideration of relevant planning policies, community impact, and any other statutory obligations that should have been taken into account.
The court found that the council's decision to deny the development permit was legally sound and that the council had acted within its statutory powers. The court confirmed that the council's assessment of the application was thorough and that it had considered all relevant factors and statutory obligations. The court found no procedural errors that could invalidate the decision, and it upheld the council's refusal of the permit. The court found that the council's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the law.
ORDERS:
The Supreme Court dismissed Touma's appeal and upheld the decision of the Canterbury Bankstown Council. The court found no errors in the council's decision-making process and confirmed that the council acted within its statutory powers. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
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.