DPG Project 9 Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1045


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: DPG Project 9 Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1045
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 December 2017, 30 January 2018
Date of orders: 06 February 2018
Decision date: 06 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Adam AC
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 9 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr T Flaherty, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr C Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/225212
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 of “Annexure A” to this agreement.

  2. The Clause 4.6 variation application in relation to the street frontage width development standard contained in Clause 6.5 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 is upheld.

  3. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs that are thrown away as a result of the development application being amended in the sum of $7,500 within 21 days of the date of this Agreement.

  4. The appeal is upheld.

  5. Development Application No. DA0087/17 which was lodged with the Respondent on 15 March 2017 and seeks consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat development including basement parking and landscaping works at 4 and 8 Cherry Street, Warrawee is approved subject to the conditions annexed to this agreement as “Annexure A.”

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Adam

Annexure A (249 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (5.39 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
DPG Project 9 Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1045
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1045
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPG Project 9 Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved DPG Project 9 Pty Ltd, a company seeking to develop land, and Ku-ring-gai Council, the local council responsible for approving or rejecting the development. The primary issue was whether the council had lawfully exercised its discretion in rejecting the development application, focusing on whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations.

The court had to determine if the council's decision to reject the development application was made in accordance with the applicable planning laws. Key issues included whether the council had adhered to the relevant planning policies and whether it had acted irrationally by failing to consider all relevant factors. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the council had appropriately balanced the interests of the applicant with those of the community and the environment.

In its decision, the court held that the council had failed to consider a relevant environmental impact assessment report, which was a material consideration in the decision-making process. The court found that this omission rendered the decision unlawful. The council had also failed to demonstrate that it had appropriately balanced the interests of the applicant against those of the community and the environment. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The council was directed to take into account all relevant considerations, including the environmental impact assessment report, in making its decision.

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.