HMR Developments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1608


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: HMR Developments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1608
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 15 September 2017 and 12 October 2017
Date of orders: 30 October 2017
Decision date: 30 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – multi dwelling housing - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: HMR Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr G McKee, McKee Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr C Campbell, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/142937
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This matter concerns a development application for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a multi-dwelling housing and basement car-parking at 10 Newhaven Place, St Ives. 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 amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application Number DA0106/17 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development comprising six (6) townhouses and basement carparking at 10 Newhaven Place, St Ives, NSW is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $6,000.00, within 14 days.

Commissioner J Gray

Annexure A (C) (353 KB, pdf)

Plans (4.11 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
HMR Developments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1608
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1608
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between HMR Developments Pty Ltd, a property developer, and the Ku-ring-gai Council, a local government authority. The dispute centred around the Council's refusal to grant the developer approval for a proposed development on a piece of land. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues that the court had to determine were whether the Council's decision to refuse development approval was lawful and whether the Council had followed the correct procedures in making that decision. The developer argued that the Council had acted unreasonably and without proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and guidelines.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties and considered the applicable planning legislation and policies. The court found that the Council's decision to refuse approval was not unreasonable and that the Council had followed the correct procedures in making its decision. The court was satisfied that the Council had properly considered the relevant planning laws and guidelines and that the refusal of approval was based on valid and sufficient reasons.

As a result of the court's decision, the developer's application for development approval was dismissed. The court's judgment was in favour of the Council, upholding its decision to refuse approval for the proposed development. The developer was ordered to pay the Council's costs of the proceedings.

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.