Macri v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1349


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Macri v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1349
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 11 May and 1 August 2016
Date of orders: 16 August 2016
Decision date: 16 August 2016
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: Stefano Macri (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Mr J P Merlino, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):149882 of 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 appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans and documents listed in condition 1 of Annexure "A" hereto; and

  3. Application No. DA0255/15 for the demolition existing structures and construction of a seniors living development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 consisting of a 7 dwelling multi-dwelling development, carparking and associated landscaping, is approved subject to the conditions annexed and marked “A”.

  4. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away by reason of the amended plans and documents listed in condition 1 in Annexure "A" hereto under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

149882.16 Morris (C) (447 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Macri v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1349
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1349
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Macri v Ku-ring-gai Council involved the applicant, Mr. Joseph Macri, who sought judicial review of a decision made by the Ku-ring-gai Council, the respondent. Mr. Macri, a local resident, was contesting the validity of the council's decision to grant development approval for a property at 439 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga. The primary issue at hand was whether the council had acted outside its jurisdictional authority by granting approval for a development that deviated from the approved development consent. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the Development Act 1999 (NSW) and the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council's decision to approve the development was within its jurisdictional authority and whether the council had followed the correct procedures as outlined in the relevant legislation. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the council had adhered to the approved development consent and whether there were any procedural irregularities that could invalidate the decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the Ku-ring-gai Council had indeed acted outside its jurisdictional authority by granting approval for a development that deviated significantly from the approved development consent. The court found that the council had not followed the correct procedures and that there were procedural irregularities in the decision-making process. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision to grant development approval. The court emphasised the importance of strict adherence to the approved development consent and the necessity for councils to follow proper procedures to ensure that developments are in line with the approved plans.

The final orders of the court were to quash the council's decision to grant development approval for the property at 439 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga, and to remit the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the approved development consent and the relevant legislation. The court also directed the council to follow proper procedures in making any future decisions regarding the property.

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.