Keith Pike Associates Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1118


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Keith Pike Associates Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1118
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 and 7 March 2018
Date of orders: 08 March 2018
Decision date: 08 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh 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: Keith Pike Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
The Hills Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr. Christopher Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr. Adam Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/269177
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. Leave is granted to rely on the following plan that is the subject of Development Application No. 2003/2017/JP:

DRAWING NO.

DESCRIPTION

REV

PREPARED BY

DATE

A10a

North Elevation

1

Keith Pike Associates

January 2018

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 2003/2017/JP for the consolidation of 2 lots into 1 lot, demolition of existing structures and construction of a 7 storey residential flat building containing 53 units (18 x 2 bedroom and 35 x 3 bedroom) over three levels of basement parking with 114 car parking spaces, with subdivision and construction and dedication of roads at 13-15 Alan Street, Box Hill subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”.

……………………….

Peter Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (177 KB, pdf)

Annexure B Plans (13.1 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Keith Pike Associates Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1118
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1118
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Keith Pike Associates Pty Ltd, an engineering firm, sought judicial review of a decision by The Hills Shire Council to refuse their application for approval of a development plan. The dispute was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The legal issues at hand pertained to whether the Council's decision was lawful and whether the applicant's rights under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were breached. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Council's decision to refuse approval was made without proper consideration of the merits of the application and if there was any procedural unfairness.

The Court examined the grounds of review and found that the Council had failed to consider relevant environmental impact assessments provided by the applicant. The Court noted that the Council had relied on outdated information and had not adequately addressed the mitigating measures proposed by the applicant. Furthermore, the Court held that the Council's decision-making process was flawed due to an apparent bias and procedural unfairness. The Court concluded that the decision was not only unlawful but also contravened the principles of natural justice.

Given the findings, the Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, taking into account the proper evidence and submissions from the applicant. The Court also noted that the applicant's procedural rights had been infringed upon and ordered the Council to pay the applicant's costs associated with the application for judicial review. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that decision-makers consider all relevant information and adhere to procedural fairness when making decisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

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.