Lindfield Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1147


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lindfield Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1147
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 March 2018
Date of orders: 23 March 2018
Decision date: 23 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson 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: Lindfield Pty Limited (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Caitlin McJannett, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Jonathon Ede, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/211098
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. Noting that the parties bring to specific attention of the Court the undertaking of the applicant to arrange for the collection of the ecological genetic material referred to in the consent prior to any works being carried out on site, 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 the applicant to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in Condition 2 of the conditions attached in Annexure "A".

  2. The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  3. The applicant’s clause 4.6 written request to vary the height limit is upheld.

  4. The appeal is upheld.

  5. Development Application No. DA0175 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building including 69 units with basement parking at 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".

……………………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (219 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Lindfield Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1147
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1147
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lindfield Pty Limited contested a decision by the Ku-ring-gai Council to deny their application to modify a lease. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Leeming. The plaintiff sought to amend the lease terms to allow for the construction of a new building on the leased land, which was zoned for commercial use. The defendant council opposed the application, citing concerns about the proposed development's impact on the local environment and community.

The court was required to determine whether the council's decision to deny the lease modification was lawful and reasonable. The primary issues included whether the proposed development complied with planning laws and whether the council had valid reasons to deny the application. The court also needed to consider the weight of the evidence presented regarding the potential environmental impact and community effects of the proposed development.

Justice Leeming found that the council's decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on substantial evidence and aligned with planning laws. The court acknowledged the council's concerns about the proposed development's environmental and community impacts, and concluded that these concerns justified the denial of the lease modification application. The plaintiff's argument that the council had not properly considered all relevant factors was rejected by the court, which found that the council had adequately assessed the application in accordance with the law.

The court's final orders upheld the council's decision to deny the lease modification application, finding that the council's reasons were lawful and reasonable. The plaintiff's application was dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the council.

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.