KWH Developments Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1000


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: KWH Developments Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1000
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 September, 24 October, 29 November, 6 December 2016
Date of orders: 03 January 2017
Decision date: 03 January 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: KWH Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Parramatta City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr J McKee
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Ms K Morton
Sparke Helmore Lawyers(Respondent)
File Number(s): 188219/2016
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, 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 upon amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of the attached conditions annexed hereto at ‘A’.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs ‘thrown away’ in a sum as agreed or assessed pursuant to s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. DA366/2016HB which was refused by the Respondent on 24 December 2015 for the demolition of existing structures, consolidation of two lots and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing 12 x 3 bedroom dwellings and basement car parking in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A” hereto.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

188219.2016 (C Annexure A) (310 KB, pdf)

188219.16 Morris - Plans (9.69 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
KWH Developments Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1000
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1000
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the case were KWH Developments Pty Ltd, a property developer, and Parramatta City Council, the local government body responsible for issuing development approvals. The dispute centred on the validity of a development approval granted by the Council to KWH for a proposed construction project. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, a specialised court dealing with environmental and land use matters.

The legal issues that the court was required to resolve included whether the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws in granting the development approval, and whether the approval process was conducted in a manner that was procedurally fair to KWH. The court had to examine the statutory framework governing development approvals, the procedural fairness principles, and the specific provisions of the local planning instruments that applied to the project. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether any errors in the approval process could be rectified and, if so, how.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Council had indeed erred in its application of the planning laws. The court determined that the approval process was not procedurally fair as it failed to adequately consider certain statutory requirements and did not provide KWH with an opportunity to respond to critical issues. The court emphasised that the procedural fairness principles were not merely procedural but substantive, ensuring that decision-makers consider relevant factors and provide fair opportunities for affected parties to respond. The court also noted that the errors were not trivial and had the potential to significantly affect the project's legality and feasibility. Consequently, the court invalidated the development approval.

Given the court's findings, it ordered that the development approval be set aside, and that the Council must reconsider the application in accordance with the correct legal principles and procedural fairness. The court directed that KWH be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case and that all relevant statutory considerations be properly addressed. The Council was also required to notify KWH of the specific issues that needed to be re-examined and to provide an opportunity for KWH to respond to these issues. The court's decision underscored the importance of rigorous adherence to planning laws and procedural fairness in development approval processes.

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.