Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Cresco Opus Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1452 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 October 2015 Date of orders: 02 November 2015 Decision date: 02 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and constructions of multi-unit housing development, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cresco Opus Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr A. Knox, solicitor, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr J. Merlino, solicitor, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10379 of 2015 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development Application DA 0012/15 for the demolition of existing dwellings and associated structures and construction of a three storey multi-dwelling housing development containing thirteen (13) dwellings, basement car parking and associated landscaping at 3 and 5 Wonga Street, Turramurra
-
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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
…………….
Commissioner Brown
10379 of 2015 Brown (s34O) (70.6 KB, pdf)
10379 of 2015 Brown (C) (484 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Cresco Opus Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1452
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1452
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant planning and environmental legislation, as well as the principles of administrative law that guide the decision-making processes of local councils. The court had to determine whether the Council's decision was based on relevant considerations, was reasonable in the circumstances, and adhered to the statutory requirements set out in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Additionally, the court examined whether the Council had provided adequate reasons for its decision and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the handling of the application.
In its decision, the court found that the Council had not acted reasonably in denying the development application. The Council had failed to adequately consider the potential environmental benefits of the proposed development and had not properly weigh the benefits against the potential harm. The court held that the Council's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence and did not follow the statutory requirements. The court also found that the Council had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, which was a breach of natural justice. As a result, 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 court emphasised that the Council must now properly consider all relevant factors and provide clear and adequate reasons for its decision.
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.