Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1204


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1204
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 January and 20 April 2018
Date of orders: 20 April 2018
Decision date: 20 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION: modification of condition of development consent relating to developer contribution; 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: Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms Felicity Rourke, Allens (Applicant)
Mr Christopher Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/266642
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an application by Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd seeking modification by the Court of Development Consent No. DA115/15 granted by Commissioner Brown in Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (No.4) [2017] 1238 on 16 May 2017, by the deletion of condition 51. The development consent authorises on conditions the demolition of all existing structures, tree removal, earthworks, road widening, driveway access from Ryde Road, signage, landscaping, the consolidation of titles, retaining walls and construction of a building and its use for the sale of hardware and building supplies at 950-950A Pacific Highway and 2 Bridge 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 make, 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 appeal is upheld.

  2. Pursuant to s96(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Development Consent DA0115/15 is modified by amending condition 51 of the conditions of consent which form 'Annexure A' of development consent DA0115/15 made by the Court on 16 May 2017, as set out in Annexure "A".

……………………….

Graham Brown

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (263 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1204
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1204
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Ku-ring-gai Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, seeking to challenge a decision made by the Council regarding the construction of a hardware store. The dispute centred on whether the Council had lawfully exercised its discretionary powers under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in denying a development application for a new Bunnings store at a specific location. The applicant argued that the decision was unlawful due to alleged procedural irregularities and an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

The court had to determine whether the Council's decision was vitiated by procedural flaws, such as failure to properly consider statutory requirements, and whether the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. The applicant contended that the Council did not adequately consider the statutory objects and principles of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, nor did it properly balance the environmental impacts against the benefits of the proposed development. Additionally, the applicant argued that the Council had applied an incorrect legal test in assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed store.

The court found that the Council had indeed erred in its assessment by not properly considering statutory requirements and applying an incorrect legal test. The decision was also deemed unreasonable as the Council failed to adequately weigh the environmental impacts against the benefits of the development. The court held that the Council's decision was thus invalid and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration. The court emphasised that the Council must now properly consider the statutory objects and principles and apply the correct legal tests when assessing the development application. The case was remitted to the Council to make a fresh determination in accordance with the court's findings.

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.