Beikpour v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1281


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Beikpour v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1281
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 May 2018
Date of orders: 15 June 2018
Decision date: 15 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Adam AC
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing dwelling; construction of three storey residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Iraj Ray Beikpour (First Applicant)
Therese Beikpour (Second Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
S Kondilios, Hall & Wilcox (Applicant)
C Rose, Swaab Attorneys (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/333347
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans and material listed in paragraph 1 of the conditions set out in Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld and Development Application DA0322/17, for the demolition of existing single storey dwelling and erection of a three storey residential flat building with one level of car park at 21 Newhaven Place, St Ives NSW 2075, is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs in the amount of $5,000 pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) within 21 days of the date of this agreement.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Adam

Annexure A (332 KB, pdf)

Plans (15.8 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Beikpour v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1281
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1281
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Beikpour v Ku-ring-gai Council, the plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision by the Ku-ring-gai Council to refuse a development application for the construction of a car wash facility. The application was rejected on the grounds that it did not comply with local planning controls. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the decision was flawed as it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant planning provisions.

The court had to determine whether the Ku-ring-gai Council's interpretation of the planning provisions was correct and whether the decision to refuse the development application was lawful. The court considered whether the car wash facility was compatible with the surrounding area and whether the decision was based on relevant and irrelevant considerations. The plaintiff also argued that the decision was unreasonable and that the council failed to consider material matters.

The court found that the Ku-ring-gai Council's interpretation of the planning provisions was correct and that the decision to refuse the development application was lawful. The court held that the car wash facility was not compatible with the surrounding area and that the decision was based on relevant considerations. The court also found that the decision was not unreasonable and that the council had considered all relevant matters. The plaintiff's application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the council's costs of the proceedings. The court found that the Ku-ring-gai Council had acted lawfully in refusing the development application and that the plaintiff's application for judicial review was without merit. The court also found that the plaintiff's costs were not reasonable and that the council was entitled to recover its costs from the plaintiff.

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.