Vantage Pymble Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1503


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vantage Pymble Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1503
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 July 2018; 14 August 2018; 4 September 2018
Date of orders: 05 October 2018
Decision date: 05 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh 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: Vantage Pymble Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
D Tyrell, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
J Ede, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/19162
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. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure "A" to this agreement;

  2. The Appeal is upheld;

  3. Development Application DA0527/17 for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a residential flat building comprising 10 units with basement parking and associated works at 14 Park Crescent, Pymble, NSW is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure "A" to this agreement;

  4. The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $12,000.00 in full and final payment of costs, within 21 days of the Court making these orders.

……………………….

P Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (176 KB, pdf)   Architectural plans (2.02 MB, pdf)    Landscape Plans (4.25 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Vantage Pymble Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1503
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1503
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vantage Pymble Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by Ku-ring-gai Council to refuse an application for development consent. The Council had rejected the application due to concerns over the proposed development's impact on the local environment and heritage. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's decision to refuse development consent was legally sound. This involved examining whether the Council correctly interpreted and applied relevant planning laws and environmental impact assessments. A secondary issue was whether the Council had acted in a procedurally fair manner in reaching its decision.

The court found that the Council had indeed interpreted and applied the relevant planning laws correctly, taking into account the environmental and heritage concerns. The decision to refuse development consent was upheld as it was deemed reasonable and lawful in the circumstances. The court also concluded that the Council had acted procedurally fairly, ensuring that all relevant factors were considered and appropriately weighed.

The orders made by the court were that the application for judicial review by Vantage Pymble Pty Ltd be dismissed, and the Council's decision to refuse development consent be affirmed. The court further directed that the costs of the proceedings be paid by Vantage Pymble Pty Ltd to the Ku-ring-gai Council.

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.