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
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents referred to in Condition 1 at “Annexure A” to this agreement.
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.
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- MLS Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1054
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1054
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.