HSH Group Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1263


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: HSH Group Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1263
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 24 April 2017
Date of orders: 26 May 2017
Decision date: 26 May 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: appeal against deemed refusal of residential flat building - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: HSH Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation: Ms E Flemming, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr J Hones, Hones Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/ 376956
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the refusal of Development Application No. DA/468/16 which sought consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 30 unit residential flat building over basement carparking on land at 2-6 Pearson Avenue Gordon.

  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 appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of the conditions of consent contained in Annexure A.

  3. The Applicant's cl.4.6 variation request is upheld.

  4. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under s.97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, agreed in the sum of $5500.00 to be paid prior to the execution of this Agreement.

  5. Development Application No. DA0468/16 is approved for the consolidation of three (3) allotments (Lots B and D in DP316799 and Lot B in DP323231), the demolition of the existing dwelling houses and associated site structures and the construction of a residential flat building consisting of thirty (30) units with basement car parking, including ancillary storm water and public domain landscaping works, and tree removal within and adjoining the proposed public roads, on land known as 2-6 Pearson Avenue, Gordon, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

376956.16 Dickson - Amended Condition (365 KB, pdf)

376956.16 Dickson-Plans (0 Byte, pdf)

Amendments

08 June 2017 - 'Conciliation Conference' entered

20 June 2017 - Amended Conditions attached - Slip Rule

Details
AGLC
HSH Group Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1263
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1263
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved HSH Group Pty Ltd, a property developer, and Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council, a local government body. The dispute arose from the developer's application to the council for approval of a proposed development on a piece of land. The council had imposed certain conditions on the approval, which the developer contested as unreasonable and beyond the scope of the planning scheme. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court included whether the conditions imposed by the council were within its statutory powers and whether they were unreasonable in the circumstances. The developer argued that the conditions were not authorised by the relevant planning legislation and were excessively burdensome, potentially rendering the approval invalid. The council, on the other hand, contended that the conditions were reasonable and necessary to ensure the development would comply with planning objectives.

In its judgment, the court examined the statutory framework governing the imposition of conditions by local councils. The court found that the conditions imposed were indeed authorised by the relevant planning legislation. Furthermore, the court held that the conditions were reasonable and proportionate to the objectives of the planning scheme. The court dismissed the developer's argument that the conditions were excessively burdensome, noting that they were necessary to mitigate potential adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and the environment. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision to impose the conditions as valid and lawful.

The final orders of the court were that the developer's application for review of the council's decision was dismissed, and the conditions imposed by the council on the development approval were upheld as valid and enforceable.

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.