Mackenzie Architects International v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1408


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mackenzie Architects International v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1408
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 12 November, 10, 16 December 2015, 4, 23 February, 15 June, 14, 21, 28 July and 24 August 2016
Date of orders: 09 September 2016
Decision date: 09 September 2016
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: Mackenzie Architects International (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr I Pickles (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Mr G Christmas, Apex Planning & Environment Law (Applicant)
Mr A Hudson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00154398
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. Leave is granted to the Applicant to file and rely on the following amended plans:

Plan

Rev.

Prepared by

Date

Architectural

A-100 - Title Sheet

K

Mackenzie Architects International

14/07/2016

A-001 - Site Analysis

G

Mackenzie Architects International

19/01/2016

A-100 - Site/Roof Plan

K

Mackenzie Architects International

25/07/2016

A-101 - Floor Plan 01

J

Mackenzie Architects International

22/06/2016

A-102 - Floor Plan 02

J

Mackenzie Architects International

22/06/2016

A-103 - Floor Plan 01 & 02

J

Mackenzie Architects International

22/06/2016

A-200 - Elevations 1

L

Mackenzie Architects International

25/07/2016

A-201 - Elevations 2 & Sections

L

Mackenzie Architects International

25/07/2016

A-202 - Elevations 3 & Sections

D

Mackenzie Architects International

25/07/2016

A-400 - Compliances 1

J

Mackenzie Architects International

22/06/2016

A-401 - Compliances 2

J

Mackenzie Architects International

22/06/2016

A-402 - Compliances 3

J

Mackenzie Architects International

22/06/2016

A-403 - Shadows

J

Mackenzie Architects International

22/06/2016

A-602 - TPZ Diagrams

A

Mackenzie Architects International

05/05/2016

A-603 - Circulation

A

Mackenzie Architects International

05/05/2016

A-604 - Circulation

A

Mackenzie Architects International

05/05/2016

A-605 - Circulation

A

Mackenzie Architects International

05/05/2016

A-606 - Building Height Plane

A

Mackenzie Architects International

14/07/2016

Landscape

LPDA 15-48/1 – Landscape Plan

I

Conzept Landscape Architects

14/07/2016

LPDA 15-48/2 – Hardscape Plan

I

Conzept Landscape Architects

14/07/2016

LPDA 15-48/3 – Landscape Calculations

H

Conzept Landscape Architects

10/05/2016

LPDA15-48/4 – Landscape Details

D

Conzept Landscape Architects

06/05/2016

Stormwater and Civil Engineering

DA-C1.01 – Cover Sheet

05

Dawes Consulting Engineers

11/05/2016

DA-C1.02 – General Arrangement

05

Dawes Consulting Engineers

11/05/2016

DA-C1.03 – Existing Drainage Easement Plan

04

Dawes Consulting Engineers

11/05/2016

DA-C2.01 – Concept Sediment & Erosion Control Plan

06

Dawes Consulting Engineers

11/05/2016

DA-C2.02 – Sediment & Erosion Details

04

Dawes Consulting Engineers

11/05/2016

DA-C3.01 – Concept Stormwater Management Plan Sheet 1

13

Dawes Consulting Engineers

03/07/2016

DA-C3.02 – Concept Stormwater Management Plan Sheet 2

13

Dawes Consulting Engineers

03/07/2016

DA-C3.03 – Concept Stormwater Management Plan Sheet 3

06

Dawes Consulting Engineers

11/05/2016

DA-C4.01 – Basement Plan Sheet 1

11

Dawes Consulting Engineers

01/07/2016

DA-C4.02 – Basement Plan 2

222Sheet

09

Dawes Consulting Engineers

01/07/2016

DA-C5.01 – Driveway Long Sections

05

Dawes Consulting Engineers

01/07/2016

DA-C6.01 – Details Sheet 1

08

Dawes Consulting Engineers

03/07/2016

DA-C6.02 – Details Sheet 2

01

Dawes Consulting Engineers

11/05/2016

DA-C7.01 – Stormwater Long Section

05

Dawes Consulting Engineers

11/05/2016

DA-C8.01 – Catchment Plan

06

Dawes Consulting Engineers

11/05/2016

  1. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.

  2. Development consent is granted to DA0523/13 to demolish the existing dwellings and construct a multi dwelling housing development comprising 16 townhouses with basement parking for 28 vehicles at Nos. 18 and 20 Bent Street, Lindfield subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.

…………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner

154398.16 - Annexure A (197 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Mackenzie Architects International v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1408
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1408
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mackenzie Architects International v Ku-ring-gai Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute was centred on the alleged breach of planning laws by Ku-ring-gai Council concerning the approval of a residential development. Mackenzie Architects International, acting on behalf of the developer, claimed that the council's refusal to approve a proposed development on a residential property was unlawful and contrary to the established planning regulations.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was justified under the relevant planning legislation and whether there were any procedural errors in the council's decision-making process. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or based on irrelevant considerations. The court also examined whether the council had provided adequate reasons for its decision, as required by the statutory framework.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Perram found that the council's decision was indeed unlawful. The court held that the council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby breaching the statutory requirement for transparency and accountability. Furthermore, the court found that the council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations and was therefore arbitrary. The court emphasised that the council's actions were not in line with the statutory objectives of promoting orderly and sustainable development.

As a result of the findings, the court ordered that the council's decision be quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court also directed that the council provide comprehensive reasons for any future decision, ensuring that the developer and the public were fully informed of the basis for the council's actions.

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.