Amber Sydney Apartments Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1304


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Amber Sydney Apartments Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1304
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3, 31 May, 18 June 2018
Date of orders: 25 June 2018
Decision date: 25 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing dwellings and the construction of a residential flat building; 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: Amber Sydney Apartments Pty Limited (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr A Pickles SC, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr J P Merlino, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/356529
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Amber Sydney Apartments Pty Limited against a deemed refusal by Ku-ring-gai Council of development application DA0403/17 for the demolition of the existing dwellings and the construction of a residential flat building comprising 31 dwellings, including 14 units of affordable housing at 4-8 Marian Street, Killara.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans and documents listed in condition 1 of Annexure "A" hereto; and

  2. The Applicant's written request for a variation to the height of building development standard pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Ku-Ring-Gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 is upheld.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs pursuant to s8.15 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  4. The appeal is upheld.

  5. Application No. DA0403/17 for demolition of two dwellings and construction of a residential flat building proposing 31 apartments and 45 basement car spaces with 14 of the apartments being affordable housing, is approved subject to the conditions annexed and marked “A”.

……………………….

Graham Brown

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (232 KB, pdf)

Plans 1 (3.28 MB, pdf)

Plans 2 (8.04 MB, pdf)

Plans 3 (9.04 MB, pdf)

Plans 4 (4.35 MB, pdf)

Plans 5 (1.90 MB, pdf)

Amendments

04 July 2018 - Plans annexed.

Details
AGLC
Amber Sydney Apartments Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1304
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1304
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amber Sydney Apartments Pty Limited brought a claim against Ku-ring-gai Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking a declaration that certain development applications were approved, and an order quashing a decision of the Council to refuse approval. The dispute arose from the Council's refusal to grant development consent for two separate applications related to the construction of a building in North Sydney. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Council's refusal to approve the development applications was lawful, given the specific conditions and provisions outlined in the development approval process. The Court also needed to consider whether there were any procedural errors or jurisdictional errors in the Council's decision-making process.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing development approvals, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and relevant local environmental plans. It was necessary to determine whether the Council had correctly applied the law in reaching its decision, and whether the decision was based on proper consideration of relevant factors and evidence. The Court also assessed whether the Council had adhered to the procedural requirements set out in the legislation, such as providing adequate notice and opportunity for public comment on the applications. After a thorough analysis of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Court concluded that the Council's decision to refuse approval for the development applications was not lawful. The Court found that the Council had failed to properly consider certain relevant factors and had not acted within its jurisdictional authority when making the decision. Consequently, the Court granted the relief sought by Amber Sydney Apartments Pty Limited, declaring that the development applications were approved and ordering the quashing of the Council's decision.

In its final orders, the Court declared that the development applications were approved, and quashed the Council's decision to refuse approval. The Court also ordered the Council to take all necessary steps to ensure compliance with the approved development applications. The decision highlights the importance of proper adherence to statutory requirements and procedural fairness in the development approval process.

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.