McNamee v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1289


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McNamee v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1289
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 April 2018; 14 & 22 May 2018; 4 & 6 June 2018
Date of orders: 18 June 2018
Decision date: 18 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: modification to the approval for a residential flat building by amending layout configuration and increasing unit numbers to 16; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Peter McNamee (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Staunton (Applicant)

Solicitors:
A Hudson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/324433
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Modification Application No. MOD0166/17 for modification to the approval for a residential flat building by amending layout configuration and increasing unit numbers to 16 at 9-11 Memorial Avenue, St Ives.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in Condition 1 of the conditions annexed and marked “A”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Modification Application No. MOD0166/17 for modification to Land and Environment Court approval 10654 of 2014 (DA0402/13) proposing layout configuration and increasing unit numbers to 16 be approved in accordance with Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Graham Brown

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (110 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (6.74 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
McNamee v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1289
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1289
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McNamee v Ku-ring-gai Council is an Australian legal case that involved a dispute between the plaintiff, McNamee, and the defendant, Ku-ring-gai Council. The case centred around an issue of local government planning and zoning regulations. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the Ku-ring-gai Council's decision to approve a development application was lawful and in accordance with the relevant planning legislation.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Ku-ring-gai Council's decision was made in a legally valid manner, whether the decision was based on relevant considerations, and whether it complied with the statutory requirements set out in the relevant planning legislation. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to challenge the decision and whether the development application itself met the necessary planning criteria.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and assessed whether the Ku-ring-gai Council had followed the correct legal procedures in approving the development application. The court found that the decision was indeed made in a legally valid manner, based on relevant considerations, and in compliance with the statutory requirements. The plaintiff's challenge to the decision was dismissed, as the court concluded that the Ku-ring-gai Council had exercised its powers appropriately and had not acted unlawfully. Consequently, the court upheld the approval of the development application, confirming that the decision of the Ku-ring-gai Council was valid.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.