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 1979Category: 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
-
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.
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1204
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1204
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.