Ronghai Property Group Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1713


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 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ronghai Property Group Pty Limited (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)
Dr J Smith (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mr A Sattler, Sattler & Associates Ltd (Applicant)
Mr C Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/00072010
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 as referred to in the conditions of consent annexed hereto at “A”.

  2. 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.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. 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)

Details
AGLC
Ronghai Property Group Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1713
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1713
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ronghai Property Group Pty Limited versus Ku-ring-gai Council, the parties were engaged in a legal dispute concerning a property development in the Ku-ring-gai area. Ronghai Property Group sought to challenge a decision by Ku-ring-gai Council that refused their application for a development approval. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue in this case was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and whether it was based on proper and relevant considerations.

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.