Blake v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1537


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Blake v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1537
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 August 2018; 27 August 2018; 11 September 2018
Date of orders: 10 October 2018
Decision date: 10 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh C
Decision:

See [4] 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: Peter Blake (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G Christmas, Apex Planning & Environment Law (Applicant)
C Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/72864
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 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 documentation referred to in condition 1 of the conditions of consent at Annexure "A".

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendments pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $5000 payable within 28 days of the date of this agreement.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development application No. 0001/2018 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a Seniors Living development containing a total of 10 units with basement parking for a total of 15 vehicles at 12 Killeaton Street, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A".

……………………….

P Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (208 KB, pdf)

Architectural Plans (9.56 MB, pdf)

Stormwater Plans (5.36 MB, pdf)

BASIX Certificate (148 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Blake v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1537
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1537
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blake v Ku-ring-gai Council was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Blake, sought to challenge a decision by the Ku-ring-gai Council to deny a development application related to the construction of a new residential building on his property. The central dispute revolved around whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with relevant planning laws and policies.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of planning legislation and the applicable council policies, the scope of judicial review in such matters, and the extent to which the council's decision-making process complied with procedural fairness. The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was lawful, whether there was any bias or procedural unfairness, and whether the decision was based on relevant considerations and was rational.

The court found that the council's decision was not procedurally fair as there had been an omission to provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to respond to critical information that emerged during the assessment process. The court held that this failure constituted a breach of the principle of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court determined that the council's decision was not based on relevant considerations and was therefore irrational. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings.

The orders of the court included quashing the council's decision and remitting the matter back to the council for reconsideration. The court also directed that the plaintiff be given an opportunity to respond to any new information or evidence that may be presented during the reconsideration process, ensuring that procedural fairness was observed.

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.