Arcare Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2019] NSWLEC 1527


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Arcare Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1527
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 October 2019
Date of orders: 31 October 2019
Decision date: 31 October 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

The Court orders:
(1)   The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 0272/18 to rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A”.
(2) The Applicant is to pay the Respondent the sum of $3,000 within 7 days of this agreement for costs thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
(3)   The Appeal is upheld.
(4)   Development Application No. 0272/18 for tree removal and construction of a Mikvah (Bathhouse) at 27 College Crescent, St Ives is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Arcare Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
F Rourke (Solicitor) (Applicant)
A Kliese (Solicitor) (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Allens (Applicant)
Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/63148
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: Arcare Pty Ltd (the Applicant) has appealed the deemed refusal by Ku-ring-gai Council (the Respondent) of its application to for tree removal and construction of a Mikvah (Bathhouse) (the proposed development), at 27 College Street, St Ives (the Subject Site).

  2. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), and falls within Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction.

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 29 October 2019, and I presided over the conciliation conference.

  4. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting consent to the development application, subject to conditions.

  5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the modification application.

  6. There are no jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised.

  7. The parties have explained how the proposed development has satisfied the provisions of relevant legislation, including s 4.15 of the EP&A Act, the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land and Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and consequently, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  8. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  9. The Court orders:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 0272/18 to rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent the sum of $3,000 within 7 days of this agreement for costs thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. 0272/18 for tree removal and construction of a Mikvah (Bathhouse) at 27 College Crescent, St Ives is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

…………………………

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (118 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Arcare Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1527
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1527
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arcare Pty Ltd sought leave to amend a development application to include a revised set of plans for the removal of trees and the construction of a Mikvah (Bathhouse) at a property in St Ives. Ku-ring-gai Council opposed the application on various grounds. The dispute came before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue for the Court was whether the applicant should be permitted to amend its development application to incorporate the revised plans and, if so, whether the amended application should be approved subject to certain conditions. The Court needed to consider the relevant statutory provisions and the merits of the application in light of the planning scheme and environmental considerations.

The Court began by examining the statutory framework governing development applications and the circumstances in which an amendment can be made. It found that the applicant had provided sufficient justification for the amendment, and the revised plans addressed many of the concerns raised by the Council. The Court then considered the merits of the amended application, taking into account the planning scheme, the potential environmental impact, and the overall suitability of the proposed development. The Court concluded that the amended application should be approved, but subject to certain conditions to mitigate any adverse effects on the environment and neighbouring properties. These conditions included requirements for erosion and sediment control, noise management, and the preservation of certain trees.

The Court granted leave for the applicant to amend the development application and approved the amended application subject to the specified conditions. The Court also ordered the applicant to pay the Council $3,000 for costs incurred due to the need for the amendment. Finally, the Court upheld the appeal against the Council's decision to refuse the original development application. This outcome allows the applicant to proceed with the construction of the Mikvah while ensuring that the development is carried out in a manner that is consistent with the planning scheme and protects the interests of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 0272/18 to rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A”.

(2) The Applicant is to pay the Respondent the sum of $3,000 within 7 days of this agreement for costs thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(3) The Appeal is upheld.

(4) Development Application No. 0272/18 for tree removal and construction of a Mikvah (Bathhouse) at 27 College Crescent, St Ives is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

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.