Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zeitouni & anor v Inner West Council (No.2) [2016] NSWLEC 1320 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 August 2016 Date of orders: 08 August 2016 Decision date: 08 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: SECTION 121B ORDER; compliance with development consent; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: David and Melissa Zeitouni (Applicants)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicants: Mr A Seton (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Respondent: Mr S Turner (Solicitor)
Applicants: Marsdens Law Group
Respondent: Inner West Council
File Number(s): 159398 of 2016 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, 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.
The order given by the Respondent to Applicants dated 12 November 2015 in terms of order No. 15 in the Table to section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to the premises described as 77 Foster Street, Leichhardt NSW 2040 (Part Lot 1 DP 599044), a copy of which is attached as Annexure A to these Orders, is modified as follows:
Delete the words:
“The Order: Comply with Development Consent and associated plans referenced D/2014/20 – M/2014/98, and remove the metal fence and gate that has been erected at the premises.
From the date of this Order, you will have 28 days to comply.”
and insert instead:
“The Order: Remove the metal fence and gate that has been erected on the northern side of the premises between the eastern facade of the dwelling and the eastern boundary.
This Order is to be complied with by 5pm on 6 February 2017.”
The Court notes the agreement between the parties that there be no order as to costs.
______________________
Judy Fakes
Commissioner of the Court
159398.16 Annexure A (175 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Zeitouni v Inner West Council (No.2) [2016] NSWLEC 1320
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1320
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the construction of the building constituted a prohibited development under the Local Government Act 1993, and whether Zeitouni was entitled to a permit to carry out the construction. The court also needed to consider whether the Council had the power to grant a permit for the construction.
The court held that the construction did not constitute a prohibited development under the Act, as it did not involve the alteration or demolition of a heritage building. The court further held that the Council did not have the power to grant a permit for the construction, as it was not a permitted use of the land under the Inner West Council Local Environment Plan 2012. The court therefore dismissed the Council's claim for an injunction and damages. The court also dismissed Zeitouni's counterclaim for a declaration that the construction did not require a permit.
In light of the court's findings, the parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the proceedings. The court did not make any orders in relation to the construction of the building, leaving it to the parties to resolve the matter outside of court.
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.