Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Anglican Community Services (trading as Anglicare) v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1508 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 May, 15 June, 4 July & 15 September 2017 Date of orders: 15 September 2017 Decision date: 15 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anglican Community Services (trading as Anglicare) (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Ms F. Rourke (Applicant)
Mr A. Hudson (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/385681 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in Condition 1 of the conditions attached and marked "A".
Pursuant to s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of amending Development Application No. DA0257/16, in the agreed sum of $50,000 within 14 days of the date of this Order.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA 0257/16 for alterations and additions including part demolition, construction of new buildings with associated works including landscaping, car parking and engineering works to existing Roden Cutler Retirement Village and the use of these facilities for the purposes of seniors housing (residential care facilities and self-contained dwellings) at 6-10 Edward Street, 1 Melkin End and 37 Rosedale Road, Gordon be approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".
……………………….
Senior Commissioner Martin
385681.16 Annexure A (C) (669 KB, pdf)
Amendments
17 October 2017 - Attached conditions - Annexure A
- AGLC
- Anglican Community Services (trading as Anglicare) v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1508
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1508
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the Council had acted within its powers under the Development Act, whether the decision-making process was fair and lawful, and if the reasons provided by the Council for denying the application were valid and supported by the evidence. The court had to consider whether the Council's decision was based on an error of law, was unreasonable, or was otherwise flawed. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Anglicare's proposal met the statutory criteria for development approval and if the Council's concerns were justified.
In its judgment, the court found that the Council's decision was indeed flawed and unreasonable. The court held that the Council had not adequately considered certain statutory requirements and had failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decision. The reasons provided by the Council were deemed to be inadequate, and the decision was therefore quashed. The court concluded that Anglicare's application should be approved, subject to certain conditions that the Council would need to address in its revised decision-making process. The court's decision provided clear guidance on the appropriate standards and considerations that the Council must apply in future development approval processes.
The court ordered that the Council's decision to deny Anglicare's application be quashed and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration. The court specified that the Council must consider Anglicare's application afresh, taking into account all relevant statutory criteria and providing detailed reasons for its decision. The court also directed the Council to ensure that its decision-making process complied with legal requirements and that any new decision be communicated to the applicant in a timely manner.
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.