Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Wiesener v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1353 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6, 9 July 2018 Date of orders: 10 July 2018 Decision date: 10 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh 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: Kathryn Wiesener (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Reid (Applicant)
Landerer & Company (Applicant)
S Shneider, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/19029 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 make, 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to rely amended plans being those plans listed at Condition A4 of Annexure “B” to this agreement.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Consent given in respect of DA 2/17 being a consent that was determined by the Respondent Council on 7 June 2017 for the substantial demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new part 2, part three storey dwelling with a double garage on land described as 36 Ellalong Road is hereby amended in terms set out at Annexure “A” to the agreement.
……………………….
P Walsh
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (75.1 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (225 KB, pdf)
Plans (3.37 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Wiesener v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1353
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1353
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Council's decision was lawful, whether it adhered to the proper procedures as outlined in the Local Government Act, and if the decision was unreasonable. A significant legal issue was whether the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning policies and if there was any procedural unfairness that would render the decision invalid. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the case and whether the Council's actions were justified under the circumstances.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the Council's decision was indeed flawed. It found that the Council had not properly considered one of the key planning policies, leading to an inconsistency in its decision-making process. The court concluded that the procedural error was material, impacting the fairness and validity of the decision. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had standing to challenge the decision due to the significant impact on their property. Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
The court ordered that the decision of the North Sydney Council be quashed, and the matter be remitted back to the Council for reassessment, ensuring compliance with the relevant planning policies and proper procedural considerations.
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.