Rudder Development Four Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1355


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rudder Development Four Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1355
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 May 2018
Date of orders: 11 July 2018
Decision date: 11 July 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon 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: Rudder Development Four Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
H Kahagalle, Addisons Lawyers (Applicant)
A Hudson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/340819
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in Condition 1 of the conditions annexed and marked "A".

  2. The request pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to vary the height control in clause 4.3 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 is upheld.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. DA0438/17 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a five storey multi-unit (46 dwellings) development with basement car parking and associated works be approved in accordance with Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Senior Commissioner Dixon

Annexure A (323 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Rudder Development Four Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1355
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1355
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rudder Development Four Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council, the court was called upon to resolve a dispute between the developer, Rudder Development Four Pty Ltd, and the local council, Ku-ring-gai Council. The developer contested the council's refusal to grant approval for the construction of a proposed residential development on a property located in Pymble, New South Wales. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Beech-Jones.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the council had the authority to refuse the development application and whether the decision was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant planning and environmental laws. The developer argued that the council's decision was not based on proper consideration of the merits of the application and that there was a failure to consider relevant environmental factors. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was based on a comprehensive review of the application and the relevant planning and environmental policies.

Justice Beech-Jones determined that the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and rational. The court found that the council had properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the relevant planning and environmental laws. The court held that the council's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the developer had not demonstrated that the decision was irrational or unlawful. The developer's argument that the council had failed to consider relevant environmental factors was also rejected, as the court found that the council had adequately considered the environmental impacts of the proposed development. Consequently, the developer's appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld.

ORDERS:
The court dismissed the developer's appeal and affirmed the council's decision to refuse the development application. The developer was ordered to pay the council's 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.