DPG Project 8 Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1169


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: DPG Project 8 Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1169
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 21 December 2016, 7 and 8 and 28 February 2017
Date of orders: 31 March 2017
Decision date: 31 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: DPG Project 8 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Dr S Berveling (Applicant)
Solicitors:
T Flaherty, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
A Hudson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/275749
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents referred to in Condition 1 at “Annexure A” to this agreement.

  2. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs that are thrown away as a result of the amendments agreed at $7,000.00 which, to be paid by 5.00pm on 14 March 2017.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA0323/16 for the demolition of existing building and construction of a residential flat development consisting of 52 units, basement parking and landscaping works at the property known as 1496 Pacific Highway, Warrawee NSW 2074, subject to the conditions annexed to this Agreement at “Annexure A”.

…………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner

275749.16 Smithson (C) (224 KB, pdf)

275749.16 Plans (10.2 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
DPG Project 8 Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1169
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1169
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DPG Project 8 Pty Ltd, a developer, brought an action against Ku-ring-gai Council, a local government body, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the council's decision to refuse development consent for a project proposed by DPG Project 8. The developer sought judicial review of the council's decision, arguing that it was unlawful and unreasonable.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was legally valid, whether it was based on relevant and irrelevant considerations, and if the decision-making process adhered to the statutory requirements. DPG Project 8 contended that the council's refusal was unreasonable because it failed to take into account the relevant planning policies and other statutory considerations. The council, on the other hand, argued that the decision was reasonable and lawful, and based on proper consideration of all relevant factors.

The court found that the council's decision was indeed unreasonable and unlawful. It determined that the council had failed to properly consider several relevant planning policies and had given undue weight to irrelevant considerations. The court was also critical of the council's handling of the public consultation process. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration. The court ordered that the council's decision be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons.

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.