Zhou v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1449


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zhou v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1449
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 August 2018
Date of orders: 24 August 2018
Decision date: 24 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 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Zhaohua Zhou (1st Applicant)
Jinhua Lu (2nd Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G Hartley, Hartley Solicitors (Applicants)
M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/298073
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant’s clause 4.6 written request in relation to the FRS development standard is upheld.

  2. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and to rely on the plans listed in condition 1 in Annexure ‘A’.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application DA201700142 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two, part three storey boarding house comprising twelve boarding rooms (including one room for a caretaker), associated landscaping works and parking for two cars, two motorcycles and two bicycles at 59 Trafalgar Street, Stanmore at 59 Trafalgar Street, Stanmore is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

  5. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $8,000.00 within 14 days.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (253 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Zhou v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1449
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1449
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zhou and another brought proceedings against the Inner West Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicants sought judicial review of a decision made by the Council to refuse their application for a change of use of a property from a residential property to a nursing home. The applicants argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that the Council had failed to have regard to relevant considerations.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's decision was unreasonable and whether the Council had failed to have regard to relevant considerations. The applicants argued that the decision was unreasonable because it was not supported by the evidence and because the Council had failed to have regard to the needs of the community for aged care services. The Council argued that the decision was reasonable and that the applicants had failed to establish that the decision was unreasonable.

The Court held that the decision was not unreasonable and that the Council had not failed to have regard to relevant considerations. The Court found that the decision was supported by the evidence and that the Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and guidelines. The Court also found that the applicants had failed to establish that the decision was unreasonable in any event. The Court rejected the applicants' argument that the Council had failed to have regard to the needs of the community for aged care services, finding that the Council had properly considered the issue and that there was no evidence to suggest that the decision was based on an irrelevant consideration.

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found that the decision was not unreasonable and that the applicants had failed to establish that the decision was based on an irrelevant consideration or was otherwise flawed. The Court made no order as to costs.

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.