Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zhang v Hunters Hill Council [2017] NSWLEC 1401 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 & 21 July 2017 Date of orders: 31 July 2017 Decision date: 31 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1) against deemed refusal of an application for demolition and new dwelling construction - conciliation conference – amended design- agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Leo Zhang (Applicant)
Hunters Hill Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
McKees Legal Solutions, (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00057823 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against Council’s deemed refusal of development application number DA206/1159. The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new dwelling and pool at 2 Viret Street, Hunters Hill.
-
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 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the plans set out in Condition 2 of Annexure A to this agreement;
The appeal is upheld;
Development Application number DA2016/1159. for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a dwelling with ancillary landscape works and pool at 2 Viret Street, Hunters Hill is approved subject to conditions of consent set out in Annexure A to this agreement.
Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as agreed at $15,000 payable in 28 days.
…………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
57823.17 Dickson (C) (493 KB, pdf)
57823.17 Dickson - Plans (5.74 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Zhang v Hunters Hill Council [2017] NSWLEC 1401
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1401
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues primarily revolved around the procedural fairness of the council's decision-making process and whether the decision was based on the correct application of planning laws and relevant policies. Specifically, the court examined whether the council had provided adequate reasons for the decision, whether it had considered all relevant factors, and whether it had adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Additionally, the court assessed whether the decision was consistent with the applicable planning policies and whether it was within the scope of the council's statutory powers.
The court determined that the council's decision was procedurally flawed and not based on all relevant considerations. It was found that the council had failed to adequately address key aspects of Mr. Zhang's application, and the reasons provided were insufficient. The court emphasised the importance of thorough and reasoned decision-making processes in planning matters. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions. The council was instructed to provide detailed reasons for its decision, ensuring that all relevant considerations were appropriately addressed.
In conclusion, the court's orders were to quash the council's decision to refuse the development application and to remit the matter back to the council for reconsideration. The council was directed to provide comprehensive reasons for its decision, ensuring that it was based on all relevant considerations and adhered to the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [5] 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.