Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ronghai Property Group Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1713 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 June 2017; hearing on 16 – 17 November 2017; reverted to s 34 conference on 17 November and 5 December 2017 Date of orders: 12 December 2017 Decision date: 12 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ronghai Property Group Pty Limited (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)
Dr J Smith (Respondent)
Mr A Sattler, Sattler & Associates Ltd (Applicant)
Mr C Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00072010 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 as referred to in the conditions of consent annexed hereto at “A”.
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application on 24 November 2017, pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in a sum as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application Council reference DA 0012/17 (as amended), for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of fifteen (15) townhouses including basement carparking for 34 cars and 4 visitor spaces, on land at 16A and 16B Park Crescent, Pymble, is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A” hereto.
……………………….
M Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (C) (332 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Ronghai Property Group Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1713
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1713
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine if the Council exercised its discretion in a way that was rational and lawful. Specifically, it needed to consider whether the Council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning policies, the site's characteristics, and the potential impact on the surrounding environment. Ronghai Property Group argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. The court examined the decision-making process of the Council, the evidence presented, and the applicability of the planning policies to the specific circumstances of the case.
After reviewing the evidence and the relevant planning policies, the court found that the Council's decision was not irrational or unreasonable. The court held that the Council had exercised its discretion properly, considering all relevant factors and adhering to the planning policies. Consequently, the court dismissed Ronghai Property Group's appeal, upholding the Council's decision to refuse the development application. As part of the court's orders, it confirmed that the Council's decision was lawful and properly made, and no further action would be taken in relation to the development approval.
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.