BFD Pymble Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1315


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: BFD Pymble Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1315
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 04 March, 07 April, 20 April, 04 May, 30 June and 21 July 2016
Date of orders: 25 July 2016
Decision date: 25 July 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 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: BFD Pymble Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr M Jaukovic, Lin Tang & Co Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr C Shaw, Swaab Attorneys (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00159352
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Da No: 0145/15 for the demolition of all existing structures and the construction of three residential flat buildings, a neighbourhood shop and basement car parking at 2-8 Pymble Avenue and 2-4 Everton Street Pymble.

  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, 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans prepared as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Plan Reference

Drawn By

Dated

S34-000 Cover Sheet (V)

S34-005 Site Analysis (J)

S34-010 Existing / Demolition Site Plan (G) S34-011 Proposed Site Plan (S)

S34-100 Proposed Floor Plan – Basement 03 (Z)

S34-101 Proposed Floor Plan – Basement 02 (Z)

S34-102 Proposed Floor Plan – Basement 01 (Y)

S34-103 Proposed Floor Plan – Lower Ground 02 (Y)

S34-104 Proposed Floor Plan – Lower Ground 01 (Y)

S34-105 Proposed Floor Plan – Ground (Z)

S34-106 Proposed Floor Plan – Level 01 (Y)

S34-107 Proposed Floor Plan – Level 02 (Y)

S34-108 Proposed Floor Plan – Level 03 (Y)

S34-109 Proposed Floor Plan – Level 04 (Y)

S34-110 Proposed Floor Plan – Roof (Y)

S34-400 Proposed Building Elevations (M)

S34-401 Proposed Building Elevations (L)

S34-402 Proposed Building Elevations (L)

S34-403 Proposed Building Elevations (N)

S34-404 Proposed Building Elevations / Sections (M)

S34-420 Proposed Building Sections (L)

S34-517 Diagrams – Waste Allocation (E)

S34-524 Diagrams - Storage (E)

S34-927 External Finishes Sample Board (D)

S34-930 Photo Montage 1 (D)

S34-931 Photo Montage 2 (D)

SHED

31/05/16

LA-201 B – Landscape Concept Plan

LA-202 B – Landscape General Arrangement Plan

LA-203 A – Deep Soils Plan

LA-204 A – Placemaking Diagram

LA-301 B – Landscape Levels Plan

LA-401 A – Tree Plan

LA-402 A – Planting Plan

LA-403 A – Planting Schedule

Turf

1/6/2016

LA-501 B – Basix Complaince Diagram

LA-701 B – Sections

LA-702 B - Sections

Turf

2/6/2016

C.01, C.02, C.03, C.04, C.10, C.11, C.12, C.13, C.14, C.15, C.16 (All Issue F)

James Taylor and Associates

01.06.15

SW.01, SW.02, SW.03, SW.04, SW.05, SW.06, SW.07, SW.08, SW.09, SW.10, SW.11, SW.12, SW.13, SW.14, SW.15, SW.101

S34-528 Rev A, S34-528.1 Rev A, S34-528.2 Rev A, S34-528.3 Rev A

SHED

01/07/2016

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 0145/15 for demolition of existing structures and the erection of three residential flat buildings containing 98 units, a neighbourhood shop, basement car parking and associated landscaping at 2-8 Pymble Avenue and 2-4 Everton Street, Pymble subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

159352.16 - Annexure A (180 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
BFD Pymble Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1315
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1315
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of BFD Pymble Pty Ltd versus Ku-ring-gai Council was before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. BFD Pymble Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought a review of the council's decision to refuse a development application for a project that would alter a commercial property in Pymble. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of local environmental planning instruments, as well as the merits of the proposed development in relation to council policies and objectives.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant planning instruments. This involved assessing the evidence presented, the council's reasoning, and whether there were any procedural errors or irrationalities in the decision-making process. The plaintiff argued that the council had erred in its assessment and failed to consider certain relevant factors.

In its ruling, the court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the council had properly considered the relevant planning instruments and the impact of the proposed development on the local environment. The plaintiff's arguments regarding alleged procedural errors and misapplication of the planning instruments were not upheld. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the council's decision to refuse the development application.

The court's final orders included a declaration that the decision of the Ku-ring-gai Council to refuse the development application was lawful and valid. BFD Pymble Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceedings.

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.