Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Active Kids Pre School Centre of Excellence Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1469 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 August 2018 Date of orders: 28 August 2018 Decision date: 28 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – child care centre - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Active Kids Pre School Centre of Excellence Pty Ltd (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Staunton (Applicant)
T To (Respondent)
Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/294857 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Active Kids Preschool Centre of Excellence against the actual refusal by North Sydney Council of DA221/2016, a development application for alterations and additions to the existing child care centre on 37 Murdoch Street and the conversion of an existing dwelling at 39 Murdoch Street for its use in conjunction with number 37 for a child care centre (on Lot 1 607324 and Lot C 158882). As a result of amendments to the application, the capacity that is now sought for the proposed centre is 50 places.
-
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 make, 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely upon the amended plans, Plan of Management and reports as set out in Annexure “A”:
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA221/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing child care centre on 37 Murdoch Street and the conversion of an existing dwelling at 39 Murdoch Street for its use in conjunction with number 37 for a 50 place child care centre is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
Annexure A (946 KB, pdf)
Plans (10.1 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Active Kids Pre School Centre of Excellence Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1469
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1469
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Council's decision to refuse the planning permit was lawful, and whether the Council properly considered all relevant statutory criteria in making its decision. The court also needed to determine whether the Council's decision was based on an unreasonable interpretation of the Local Environmental Plan and whether the refusal was discriminatory or otherwise unjust. Active Kids argued that the Council had failed to consider certain evidence and had applied an incorrect legal test in reaching its decision.
The court found that the Council's decision to refuse the planning permit was not unlawful. It held that the Council had properly considered the statutory criteria and had made its decision in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. The court found that the Council had not erred in its interpretation of the Local Environmental Plan and that the refusal was not discriminatory or unjust. The court further held that the Council had not failed to consider any relevant evidence, and that the decision-making process was fair and transparent. The court dismissed the application for judicial review.
The court made no orders for costs. The decision of the North Sydney Council to refuse the planning permit was upheld, and Active Kids' application for judicial review was dismissed in its entirety.
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.