Staldone Corporation Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1201


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Staldone Corporation Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1201
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 7 March, 5 April & 14 April 2016
Date of orders: 27 May 2016
Decision date: 27 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: Staldone Corporation Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Mr S Simington,
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Applicant)

Mr A Hudson,
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/155399 (formerly 10026 of 2015)

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, 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 amend its development application in accordance with the plans and documents specified in condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Consent is granted to DA554/15 for demolition of existing structures and the construction of a residential flat building consisting of 51 apartments, basement parking and associated landscaping works at 12A, 14 and 16 Shinfield Avenue, St Ives subject to the conditions in Annexure  ‘A’.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

155399.16 Morris (C) (312 KB, pdf)

155399.16 Morris_20160527_123719 (10.9 MB, pdf)

155399.16 Morris_C03 SITE MANAGEMENT AND EXCAVATION PLAN (469 KB, pdf)

155399.16 Morris_103-433 12A, 14 & 16 Shinfield Av - St Ives (998 KB, pdf)

Amendments

17 June 2016 - Uploaded correct C03 PDF Plan

08 June 2016 - Replaced PDF map '16 (15) 103-433'D'

Details
AGLC
Staldone Corporation Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1201
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Staldone Corporation Pty Ltd contested Ku-ring-gai Council's refusal to grant development approval for a proposed project in the suburb of Belrose, New South Wales. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The developer argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the Development Act 2006. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was justified due to the project's potential environmental impact and non-compliance with the local planning instrument.

The court had to determine whether the council's decision was lawful and reasonable. The primary issues were whether the council correctly applied the relevant planning policies and whether the decision was based on proper consideration of the evidence. The court also examined whether the council's decision was unreasonable, given the evidence presented and the applicable law.

The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and was in accordance with the relevant planning policies. The court held that the council had properly considered the environmental impact of the proposed development and had given due weight to the evidence presented. The court found that the council's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the law, and dismissed the developer's application.

The Land and Environment Court dismissed the developer's application for judicial review and upheld the council's decision to refuse development approval. The court found that the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and properly based on the evidence presented. The court also held that the council had correctly applied the relevant planning policies in reaching its decision. The developer's application for judicial review was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld.

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.