Tyne Damien Archer v City of Sydney Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1417


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tyne Damien Archer v City of Sydney Council [2016] NSWLEC 1417
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 9, 19 August and 1, 8, September 2016
Date of orders: 16 September 2016
Decision date: 16 September 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Tuor 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:

Tyne Damien Archer (Applicant)

Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:

Mr C Farah, Yates Beaggi Lawyers (Applicant)

Mr P Canning, Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/154613
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 Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.

  2. Pursuant to clause 4.6 of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP 2012), the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that, based on the amended plans:

(i) compliance with clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio of SLEP 2012 would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances;

(ii)   there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard; and

(iii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of clause 4.4 of SLEP 2012 and the objectives for development within the R1 General Residential zone.

  1. In accordance with section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments in the sum of $3,000.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application No. D/2015/433 lodged on 7 April 2015 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house including new first floor rear addition and attic conversion with new front dormer window is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

……………………..

Annelise Tuor

Commissioner

154613.16 Tuor (C) (168 KB, pdf)

154613.16 Tuor - Plans (753 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Tyne Damien Archer v City of Sydney Council [2016] NSWLEC 1417
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1417
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tyne Damien Archer v City of Sydney Council, the dispute arose from a decision by the council to revoke a planning permit granted to the appellant for a property located in Sydney. Archer sought judicial review of the council's decision, challenging its legality and the process followed. The case was heard and determined by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues in the case involved the scope of the council's discretionary powers under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and whether the council's decision was made in accordance with relevant statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. Archer argued that the council acted beyond its powers by revoking the permit without proper justification and that the process was flawed, failing to provide adequate reasons for the decision.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The court considered whether the council had a valid basis for revoking the permit and whether the appellant was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against the permit. Ultimately, the court found that the council's decision was lawful and the process followed was procedurally fair. The council had a valid basis for revoking the permit, and Archer was given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The court dismissed Archer's application for judicial review, upholding the council's decision to revoke the planning permit. The court found that the council had acted within its statutory powers and followed a lawful process in reaching its decision. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory framework governing planning permits and the principles of administrative law, ensuring that the council's decision was both legally sound and procedurally just.

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.