Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zagoridis and Bowen v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1460 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 & 28 August 2018 Date of orders: 28 August 2018 Decision date: 28 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Zagoridis (First Applicant)
Emma Bowen (Second Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
A Pickup, Pickup Legal (Applicant)
G Christmas, Apex Planning and Environment Law (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/56698 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:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended architectural plans:
Plan No.
Revision
Plan/
Certificate
Type
Prepared by
Date
DA-01
G
Plans
Nexus Architecture
27-08-18
DA-02
G
Sections and Elevations
Nexus Architecture
27-08-18
DA-03
G
Primary House Plans
Nexus Architecture
27-08-18
DA-04
G
Prim.Hse Sections & Elevations
Nexus Architecture
27-08-18
DA-05
G
Secondary House Plans
Nexus Architecture
27-08-18
DA-06
G
Prim.Hse Sections & Elevations
Nexus Architecture
27-08-18
DA-07
G
Fence Details
Nexus Architecture
27-08-18
Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs agreed of $1,500.00 upon execution of this Agreement.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to DA201700519 to carry out ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and construct a two storey secondary dwelling at the rear on the land known as 23 Lord Street, Newtown subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.
……………………….
M Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (141 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Zagoridis and Bowen v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1460
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1460
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant planning provisions in assessing the development application. Additionally, the court had to determine if the council's decision-making process was in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The applicants argued that the council had erred in its interpretation of the planning provisions and failed to consider certain relevant factors, while the council maintained that their decision was lawful and justified.
In examining these issues, the court found that the council had indeed misinterpreted the planning provisions in their assessment of the development application. The court noted that the council had failed to consider all relevant factors and had placed undue emphasis on certain aspects of the application. Furthermore, the court concluded that the council's decision-making process had not been in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Consequently, the court granted the applicants' application for judicial review and quashed the council's decision.
The court ordered that the Inner West Council reconsider the development application, taking into account the correct interpretation of the planning provisions and all relevant factors. Additionally, the council was directed to ensure that their decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. This case serves as a reminder to local councils of the importance of correctly interpreting planning provisions and adhering to procedural fairness when making decisions on development applications.
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.