Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Teda Eastern Coast Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2022] NSWLEC 1128 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 2 February 2022 Date of orders: 23 March 2022 Decision date: 23 March 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No. 0341/21 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey seniors’ living development comprising five self-contained dwellings over basement parking, at 26 Russell Avenue, Lindfield, is approved, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – seniors housing development – contravention of development standards – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.16, 8.7
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cll 2, 55, Sch 6
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, cl 4.6
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 39
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, Sch 7, cl 2
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, cll 26, 40
Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006, cl 4.6
Cases Cited: Australian Nursing Home Foundation Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1205
Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 117
Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90
Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118
Ku-ring-gai Council v Pathways Property Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 73
Principal Healthcare Finance Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Ryde [2016] NSWLEC 153
RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130
Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Teda Eastern Coast Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S. Kondilios (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C. Morton (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/266181 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. 0341/21 for the construction of a two storey seniors’ living development comprising five self-contained dwellings over basement parking (the proposal) at 26 Russell Avenue, Lindfield (the site) by Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (the Council).
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 2 February 2022. I presided over the conciliation conference.
-
At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties.
-
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Teda Eastern Coast Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWLEC 1128
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing the development application. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the council's decision was unreasonable or if there were any errors of law. The applicant argued that the refusal was not supported by the evidence and that the council had failed to properly consider the applicant's proposal.
The court found that the council's decision was indeed unreasonable. The court held that the council had failed to properly consider the applicant's proposal and had not provided adequate reasons for the refusal. The court found that the applicant's proposal was consistent with the relevant planning scheme and that the council's decision was not supported by the evidence. The court further found that the council's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant policy and guidelines. As a result, the court upheld the applicant's appeal and approved the development application, subject to certain conditions.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No. 0341/21 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey seniors’ living development comprising five self-contained dwellings over basement parking, at 26 Russell Avenue, Lindfield, is approved, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
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.