Milanovic v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1100


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Milanovic v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1100
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 February 2017
Date of orders: 28 February 2017
Decision date: 28 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1X) against refusal of application for alternations additions, alfresco seating area and new fencing : conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Miro Milanovic (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms. L Saw (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Ms. C Morton, Sparke Helmore Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00329400
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the refusal of Development Application No. 0352/15 for alterations and additions at 1 Sabina Place 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, 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 are:

  1. The appeal in respect of the property known as 1 Sabina Place, St Ives is upheld; and

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans set out in condition 1 contained in Annexure A. The parties agree that the amendments are minor for the purposes of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW);

  3. Development Application Council reference No. 0352/15 for alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy at 1 Sabina Place St Ives is approved subject to conditions of consent set out in Annexure A.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

329400.16 Dickson Annexure A (C) (96.8 KB, pdf) 

329400.16 - Plans (4.53 MB, pdf)

Amendments

20 March 2017 - Typographical error amended in Order 2

Details
AGLC
Milanovic v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1100
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1100
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Milanovic v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council was a matter concerning a dispute between the respondent, a local council, and the applicant, who was the owner of a property. The case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in relation to a development application for the construction of a granny flat on the applicant’s property. The applicant sought a declaration that the council’s refusal to approve the development application was invalid. The applicant also sought an order for the council to approve the development application, as well as damages for the council’s alleged unlawful refusal.

The central legal issue in the case was the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and whether the council had acted within its lawful powers when it refused the applicant’s development application. The court had to determine whether the council’s refusal was based on a correct interpretation of the Act and whether the council had considered all relevant factors when making its decision. The applicant argued that the council’s decision was unreasonable and that the council had failed to properly consider the merits of the application.

The court found that the council had not erred in its interpretation of the Act and that its decision to refuse the development application was based on a correct application of the relevant provisions. The court held that the council had considered all relevant factors when making its decision and that it had acted within its lawful powers. The court rejected the applicant’s argument that the council’s decision was unreasonable and found that the applicant had not established a case for a declaration that the council’s decision was invalid. The court also found that the applicant had not established a case for damages against the council.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant’s claim for a declaration that the council’s decision was invalid was dismissed, as was the applicant’s claim for damages against the council. The court did not make any order in relation to the applicant’s claim for an order for the council to approve the development application, as it found that the applicant had not established a case for such an order.

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.