Globalus Holdings Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1203


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Globalus Holdings Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1203
Hearing dates: Conciliation 6 February and 30 March 2017
Date of orders: 24 April 2017
Decision date: 24 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION: alterations to existing approval for a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Globalus Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: G Hartley, Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
S Kaoutarani, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/309275
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against an application to modify DA 0099/14 for alterations to an existing approval for a residential flat building at 1190 and 1190A Pacific Highway 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 applicant is granted leave to rely on the plans listed under Condition 1 - Approved architectural plans and documentation (s.96) in Annexure ‘A’.

  2. Appeal upheld; and

  3. Application to modify development consent DA 0099/14 approved by the Land and Environment Court in case 10643 of 2014 for internal and external amendments to an approved flat building is approved subject to the amended conditions listed in Annexure ‘A’.

…………….

Graham Brown

Commissioner of the Court

309275.16 Annexure A (C) (86.4 KB, pdf)

309275.16 Plans (15.9 MB, pdf)

Amendments

24 April 2017 - Plans attached

Details
AGLC
Globalus Holdings Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1203
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Globalus Holdings Pty Ltd sought a review of a decision made by the Ku-ring-gai Council to deny approval for a development application. The council had rejected the application on the basis that the proposal would not comply with the local environmental plan and zoning provisions. The dispute was heard and determined by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and whether there were any errors in the process that led to the refusal. The applicant argued that the council had failed to properly consider certain evidence and had misapplied the local environmental plan in its decision-making process. The council, on the other hand, contended that the decision was based on proper consideration of all relevant factors and was in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.

The court considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and examined the relevant legal principles and provisions. It found that the council had not properly considered certain evidence and had misapplied the local environmental plan in its decision-making process. The court also found that the council's decision was not supported by sufficient reasons and that there had been an error in the process that led to the refusal. Based on these findings, the court set aside the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the council's decision to refuse the development application be set aside and that the matter be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions. The court also ordered that the applicant be refunded the application fee and that the parties bear their own costs of the proceedings.

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.