Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Yialas v Waverley Council [2018] NSWLEC 1219 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 April 2018 Date of orders: 08 May 2018 Decision date: 08 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish 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: Peter Yialas (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
S Kondilios, Hall & Wilcox (Applicant)
S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/325219 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans listed in paragraph 1 of the conditions set out in Annexure A, being the plans prepared by BKA Architecture dated 9 April 2018 and identified as:
DA 000 - Cover Page (Rev B)
DA 001 - Site Analysis/ Site Plan (Rev B)
DA 100 - Basement Plan (Rev B)
DA 101 - Ground Floor Plan (Rev B)
DA 102 - Level 1 Plan (Rev B)
DA 104 - Roof Plan (Rev B)
DA 200 - East & West Elevations (Rev B)
DA 201 - South Elevation (Rev B)
DA 202 - North Elevation (Rev B)
DA 300 - Section AA (Rev B)
DA 301 - Section BB (Rev B)
DA 850 - Area Calculations (Rev B)
DA 900 - Material Board (Rev B)
Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the reports listed in paragraph 1 of the conditions set out in Annexure A, being the reports identified as:
Structural Statement for the Proposed Garage Extension Excavation prepared by Lewis Dunnings Pty Ltd dated 13 April 2018; and
Letter prepared by STS GeoEnvironmental dated 13 April 2018.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA-374/2017, for dwelling alterations and additions to existing dwelling at 166 Hastings Parade North Bondi, NSW 2026, is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.
……………………….
Sarah Bish
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (140 KB, pdf)
Annexure B Plans (6.18 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Yialas v Waverley Council [2018] NSWLEC 1219
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to address included whether the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning legislation in denying the development application, and whether there were any procedural errors in the handling of the application. The appellant argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that there was a failure to properly consider certain aspects of the application. Conversely, the Council contended that the decision was in accordance with the law and that the appellant's application did not meet the necessary criteria for approval.
In its judgment, the court found that the Council's decision was indeed flawed. The court determined that the Council had not adequately considered certain evidence presented by the appellant and had failed to apply the relevant statutory provisions correctly. The court held that the Council's exercise of discretion was unreasonable and that the decision to deny the development application was not supported by the evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court's order mandated that the Council reassess the development application, taking into account the errors identified in the judgment.
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.