The Owners Strata Plan No 81312 v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1048


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners Strata Plan No 81312 v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1048
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 January 2018
Date of orders: 01 February 2018
Decision date: 01 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: APPEAL - order under the Swimming Pools Act 1992 - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: The Owners Strata Plan No 81312 (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Ms Thomson, Chairman, The Owners Strata Plan No 81312 (Applicant)

Solicitor:
Mr Clarke, Hones Lawyers(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/273775
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 appeal is upheld.

  2. Schedule 2 of the Respondent’s Direction to Comply issued pursuant to s 23 of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 dated 11 August 2017 (ref. SPA0146/17, herein ‘Direction’) is amended as follows:

  1. Within 90 days of the date of these Orders, the Applicant is to procure the carrying out and completion of the following works:

The western door (as indicated in red clouding on the plan annexed to these orders and marked “A”) is to be rendered permanently inoperable.

A compliant pool barrier is to be erected between the pool and the eastern door in a manner agreed between the parties after consultation with the applicable swimming pool fencing companies and as signed off by the Respondent prior to construction, and in compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992, the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008 and relevant Australian Standard.

……………………….

Commissioner Gray

Annexure A (377 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
The Owners Strata Plan No 81312 v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1048
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1048
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Owners Strata Plan No 81312 sought judicial review of a decision of the Ku-ring-gai Council regarding a proposed building development. The dispute arose from the application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The matter was heard and determined by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws and whether the proposed development complied with the conditions set out in the development approval. The applicants argued that the Council had failed to consider relevant environmental factors and had not applied the laws in a fair and reasonable manner. The Council contended that it had properly exercised its discretion and had considered all relevant factors in reaching its decision.

The court found that the Council had not adequately considered the environmental impact of the proposed development and had failed to properly apply the relevant planning laws. The court held that the Council's decision was unreasonable and should be set aside. The court further found that the proposed development did not comply with the conditions set out in the development approval and that the Council's decision to approve the development was therefore invalid. The court granted the applicants' application for judicial review and ordered the Council to reconsider the development application in accordance with the law.

The court's final orders included setting aside the Council's decision to approve the proposed development, directing the Council to reconsider the development application in accordance with the law, and ordering the Council to pay the applicants' costs of the proceedings.

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.