Peter Blake v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1102


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Peter Blake v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1102
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 February 2017
Date of orders: 01 March 2017
Decision date: 01 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
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: Peter Blake (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: G Christmas, Apex Planning and Environment Law (Applicant)
A Hudson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/263182
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 respondent’s costs thrown away in the total amount of $5,000, by 5.00pm on 23 February 2017.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA00330/2016 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a multi-housing development comprising 11 townhouses, basement car parking and associated landscaping at the property known as 8-10 Warrangi Street, Turramurra NSW 2074, subject to the conditions annexed to this Agreement at “Annexure A”.

…………….

Rosemary Martin

Senior Commissioner

263182.16 Annexure A (C) (230 KB, pdf)

263182.16 Plans (10.5 MB, pdf)

Amendments

01 March 2017 - Hearing date on cover sheet - added words "Conciliaton conference on..."

Details
AGLC
Peter Blake v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1102
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1102
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter Blake sought to build a large structure on his property in Ku-ring-gai, which was approved by the local council. However, the Ku-ring-gai Council subsequently sought to revoke the approval and imposed conditions on the development. The dispute came before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue was whether the council had the authority to revoke the approval and impose new conditions on the development. The court also needed to determine whether the council's actions were consistent with the relevant legislation and if Mr. Blake's rights were protected.

The court found that the council had the power to revoke the approval and impose conditions on the development. The court held that the council's actions were consistent with the relevant legislation and that Mr. Blake's rights were not infringed. The court found that the council had acted in accordance with its statutory powers and duties and that its decision to revoke the approval and impose conditions was lawful. The court also held that the council had acted in good faith and that its decision was not irrational or unreasonable.

The court rejected Mr. Blake's argument that the council had acted beyond its statutory powers. The court found that the council had acted within its statutory authority and that its decision to revoke the approval and impose conditions was not unlawful. The court also rejected Mr. Blake's argument that the council had acted in bad faith or that its decision was irrational or unreasonable. The court held that the council had acted in accordance with its statutory powers and duties and that its decision was lawful.

The court ordered that the council's decision to revoke the approval and impose conditions on the development was affirmed. The court also ordered that Mr. Blake was liable for the costs of the proceedings. The court found that the council's actions were consistent with the relevant legislation and that Mr. Blake's rights were not infringed. The court held that the council had acted within its statutory powers and that its decision was lawful.

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.