Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Able Apartments Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1519 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 July, 30 August, 27 September, 24 October 2016 Date of orders: 04 November 2016 Decision date: 04 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Able Apartments Pty Limited (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant)
Mr A Hudson, solicitor (Respondent)
- (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00153791 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA0039/16 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development at 1017 Pacific Highway Pymble.
-
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 applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away for the purpose of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 agreed at $6,000.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA0039/16 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use (2 x commercial tenancies and 14 x shop top housing units including basement parking and strata subdivision) for Lot 2 DP 5216966, 1017 Pacific Highway, Pymble NSW 2073 subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’.
…………….
G T Brown
Commissioner
153791.16 - Annexure A (193 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Able Apartments Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1519
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1519
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the Council's decision to refuse consent was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the planning scheme. The court had to consider whether the proposed development was consistent with the zoning and development controls outlined in the relevant planning instruments, and whether the Council's decision was supported by proper and relevant reasons. The plaintiff also argued that the Council had failed to consider relevant environmental and community impacts as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The court found that the Council's decision was not supported by proper reasons and was therefore invalid. The court held that the Council had failed to properly consider the environmental impacts of the proposed development, including the effect on neighbouring properties and the local community. The court also found that the Council's decision was not consistent with the planning scheme, as the proposed development was consistent with the zoning and development controls. The court further held that the Council had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, and that the decision was therefore unreasonable. As a result, the court set aside the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the planning scheme and the relevant legislation.
The court ordered that the Council reconsider the development application, taking into account the findings and directions of the court. The court also ordered that the Council provide written reasons for its decision, and that the reasons be provided to the plaintiff. The court did not make any orders in relation to costs.
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.