KX Operations Pty Limited v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2021] NSWLEC 1221


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: KX Operations Pty Limited v The Council of the City of Sydney [2021] NSWLEC 1221
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 April 2021
Date of orders: 04 May 2021
Decision date: 04 May 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld;

(2) The Modification Application D/2003/765/I, seeking to modify development consent D/2003/765 in relation to the property at 248 William Street, Potts Point NSW 2011 (Lot 1 DP 201712), is approved and the development consent is modified as set out in the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012

Texts Cited:

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (July 2020)

Sydney Development Control Plan 2012

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: KX Operations Pty Limited (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
C McEwen SC (Applicant)
M Mallos (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Bulford Legal Pty Limited (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/36465
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: KX Operations Pty Limited (the Applicant) has appealed the deemed refusal by the Council of the City of Sydney (the Respondent) of its modification application (D/2003/765/I) made under cl 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), to amend 13 conditions and delete a further 14 conditions within the consent (D/2003/765) (the Proposed Modification) concerning works in relation to, and the operation of, the Kings Cross Hotel at 248 William Street, Kings Cross (the Subject Site).

  2. The Kings Cross Hotel has a consent to operate 24 hours per day with a total capacity of 1,300 patrons on the ground floor and 200 patrons on each of the other levels.

  3. The Subject Site is a heritage item (item number I1194) under the provisions of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP) and is zoned B4 (Mixed Use) under the provisions of SLEP.

  4. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.9 of the EP&A Act and falls within Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction. The proceedings are determined pursuant to the provisions of s 8.13 of the EP&A Act.

  5. The Court had arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the Parties, which was held on 9 April 2021, and I presided over the conciliation conference.

  6. The conciliation conference was convened in a manner consistent with the Court’s COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (the Policy). A site view was not undertaken at the commencement of the conciliation conference.

  7. At the conciliation conference, the Parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the Parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting consent to the Applicant’s development application, subject to conditions.

  8. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the Parties’ decision if the Parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  9. Under the provisions of s 4.55(2) of the EP&A Act there are jurisdictional matters that must be satisfied in order for the Court to have power to approve the Applicant’s modification application, and that these requirements have been satisfied as follows:

  1. the Parties have confirmed, and I am satisfied, that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified in satisfaction of the provisions of s 4.55(2)(a) of the EP&A Act;

  2. the Parties have confirmed, and I accept, that there is no need to consult the Minister pursuant to any requirement under s 4.55(2)(b) of the EP&A Act;

  3. in relation to the provisions of s 4.55(2)(c) of the EP&A Act, the Parties have advised, and I accept, that, consistent with the provisions of Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 (SDCP), notification of the modification application was not required as approval of the amendments sought would not increase environmental impacts arising from the modified consent;

  4. as notification of the Applicant’s modification application was not required under the provisions of SDCP, there were no submissions to be considered in relation to the provisions of s 4.44(2)(d) of the EP&A Act.

  1. There are no other jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before the Court can exercise the power to determine the appeal under s 8.13 of the EP&A Act.

  2. Having considered the advice of the Parties, provided above at [9], I agree that the jurisdictional prerequisites on which I must be satisfied before I can exercise the power under s 8.13 of the EP&A Act have been so satisfied.

  3. I am further satisfied that the Parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  4. As the Parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the Parties’ decision.

  5. 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.

  6. The Court orders that:

  1. The appeal is upheld;

  2. The Modification Application D/2003/765/I, seeking to modify development consent D/2003/765 in relation to the property at 248 William Street, Potts Point NSW 2011 (Lot 1 DP 201712), is approved and the development consent is modified as set out in the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

…………………………..

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (479413, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
KX Operations Pty Limited v The Council of the City of Sydney [2021] NSWLEC 1221
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1221
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of KX Operations Pty Limited versus The Council of the City of Sydney was brought before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. KX Operations sought to modify development consent previously granted for a property located at 248 William Street, Potts Point. The City of Sydney Council opposed the modification, prompting the legal dispute. The court was required to determine whether the proposed modifications to the development consent were consistent with the planning principles outlined in the applicable legislation and the development consent itself. The central issue was whether the modifications would result in an unacceptable impact on the character of the local area, and if the proposed modifications adhered to the planning and environmental laws.

The court examined the development consent and the proposed modifications in detail, considering the potential effects on the surrounding area, including the visual impact, traffic, and the character of the neighbourhood. It was essential to balance the rights of the developer to make modifications against the need to protect the public interest, including the preservation of the local environment and community character. The court found that the proposed modifications were consistent with the planning principles and did not adversely affect the local area. The modifications were deemed to be in line with the original development consent and would not result in an unacceptable impact on the character of the neighbourhood.

Following its analysis, the court upheld the appeal and approved the modification application. The court ordered that the development consent be modified in accordance with the conditions of consent specified in Annexure A. This decision allows KX Operations to proceed with the modifications to the property, while ensuring that the public interest and the character of the local area are protected. The ruling reflects the court's consideration of the balance between development rights and community interests in planning decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld;

(2) The Modification Application D/2003/765/I, seeking to modify development consent D/2003/765 in relation to the property at 248 William Street, Potts Point NSW 2011 (Lot 1 DP 201712), is approved and the development consent is modified as set out in the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

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.