MLS Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1054


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: MLS Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1054
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 February 2017
Date of orders: 13 February 2017
Decision date: 13 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: MLS Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr A Judson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/225900
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. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents referred to in Condition 1 at “Annexure A” to this agreement.

  2. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA0233/2016 for the demolition of all existing improvements and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development comprising 10 town house dwellings; 21 car parking spaces in the basement level; and new landscaping at 142 Killeaton Street, St Ives NSW 2075 (Lot 7 in DP 261957), subject to the conditions annexed to this Agreement at “Annexure A”.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

Annexure A (336 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
MLS Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1054
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1054
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, MLS Development Pty Ltd, sought to appeal against a decision of the Ku-ring-gai Council, which had refused to grant a development approval for a proposed apartment building in Pymble, New South Wales. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 2015, particularly in relation to the zoning of the land and the conditions attached to the development approval. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, with the appeal being determined by Justice Leeming.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the development approval could be granted despite the refusal, and whether the refusal was lawful. This involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Local Environment Plan, assessing the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area, and determining whether the council's decision was rational and in accordance with the law. The plaintiffs argued that the council had misinterpreted the zoning of the land and failed to properly consider the merits of the development application.

Justice Leeming, in delivering the judgment, found that the council's decision was not unlawful. The court held that the proposed development did not comply with the zoning requirements of the Local Environment Plan, and that the council was correct in its interpretation of the plan. The court also found that the council had properly considered the impact of the development on the surrounding area and had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the refusal of the development approval was upheld.

In conclusion, the court found that the Ku-ring-gai Council's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful and based on a proper interpretation of the Local Environment Plan. The appeal was dismissed, and the refusal of the development approval was upheld. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

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.