Zena Soleiman v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1099


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zena Soleiman v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1099
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 December 2016 & 20 January 2017
Date of orders: 01 March 2017
Decision date: 01 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson 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: ZENA SOLEIMAN (Applicant)
INNER WEST Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Dr S. Berveling
Solicitors:
Mr J Comino, Comino Prassas Solictors (Applicant)
Mr J Strati, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/270245
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 make, 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. That the appeal be upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans (Version F) lodged with the Respondent on 2 February 2017.

  3. Approval is granted to Application No. DA201500453 for Alterations and Additions to an Existing Dwelling and Conversion into a 3 storey boarding house with 9 rooms, subject to conditions set out in Annexure “A” attached hereto, on Lot 4 DP 11298 known as 58 Ewart Street Marrickville; and

  4. Applicant to pay Respondents Costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in the sum of $1,500.00 plus GST.

……………………….

Commissioner Smithson

270245.16 Smithson (C) (242 KB, pdf)

270245.16 Smithson - Context Drawing 1 ISSUE D (232 KB, pdf)

270245.16 Smithson - DA shadow Diagrams and Analysis ISSUE F (204 KB, pdf)

270245.16 Smithson - DA Elevations + 3D Views 2 ISSUE F (977 KB, pdf)

270245.16 Smithson - Roof Plan and Concept Stormwater ISSUE F (348 KB, pdf)

270245.16 Smithson - DA Elevations + 3D views 1 ISSUE F (549 KB, pdf)

270245.16 Smithson - DA Sections ISSUE F (285 KB, pdf)

270245.16 Smithson - Plans First and Second Floor ISSUE F (1.30 MB, pdf)

270245.16 Smithson - DA Ground Floor Plan and Sediment Control Details ISSUE F (503 KB, pdf)

270245.16 Smithson - Context Drawing 2 ISSUE D (209 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Zena Soleiman v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1099
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1099
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zena Soleiman versus Inner West Council involved the applicant, Zena Soleiman, challenging a decision made by the Inner West Council to deny her application for a zoning amendment. The dispute centred around Soleiman's desire to change the zoning of her property from a residential use to a mixed-use, allowing for commercial activities. This decision was reviewed by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which held jurisdiction over matters concerning local government and land use.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Inner West Council's decision to deny the zoning amendment was lawful and if the council had acted within its statutory powers. Key issues included the interpretation of the relevant planning legislation, the application of relevant policies and guidelines, and the consideration of whether the decision was unreasonable or had been made in error. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the decision-making process complied with procedural fairness requirements.

In its judgment, the court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, scrutinising the council's rationale for denying the application. The court concluded that the council had acted within its statutory authority and that its decision was not irrational or unreasonable. The council's assessment was based on relevant planning policies and the potential impact on the surrounding environment and community. The court found that the council had adequately considered the application and provided sufficient reasons for its decision, thus upholding the council's ruling.

The Land and Environment Court found in favour of the Inner West Council, dismissing Soleiman's application. The court ordered that the decision of the council to deny the zoning amendment application be upheld, and no further action could be taken by the applicant regarding the matter.

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.