Zaki v Ku-ring-gai Council

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zaki v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1614
Hearing dates: 8 November 2019
Date of orders: 11 December 2019
Decision date: 11 December 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

The Court orders:
(1) By consent, the appeal is upheld
(2) The Applicant’s application to modify development consent DA067/11 granted by the Court on 20 March 2013 in proceedings 2012/10054, is approved, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto at Annexure ‘A’.
(3) The exhibits are returned, except Exhibits A and 2.

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – consent orders – childcare centre – potential traffic impacts – potential noise impacts – resident objectors – public interest.
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 2015
Cases Cited: Crawford Education Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1388
Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Limited v Hurstville City Council [2005] NSWLEC 315
Zaki v Ku-ring-gai Council [2013] NSWLEC 1011
Texts Cited:

Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2015

 

NSW Department of Planning and Environment, Child Care Planning Guideline, (2017)

  Practice Note – Class 1 Development Appeals Standards Australia, Australian Standard AS2890.1, (2004)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Kerolos Zaki (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Reid (Applicant)
C Morton (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Swaab (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/274533
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: Kerolos Zaki (the Applicant) has appealed the deemed refusal by Ku-ring-gai Council (the Respondent), of his application to modify certain conditions of consent granted by the Court under proceedings 2012/10054, for a childcare centre (the centre), located at 5 Manning Road, Killara (the Subject Site).

  2. The consent was granted by then Commissioner Tuor in Zaki v Ku-ring-gai Council [2013] NSWLEC 1011 (the original consent)

  3. The modification application seeks to increase the maximum number of children able to attend the centre from 78 children to 96 children (the proposed development).

  4. The appeal had been listed for a conciliation conference on 7 November 2018 under s34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. However, the Court granted leave to the Parties for the matter to be determined in a consent orders hearing.

  5. The appeal is made pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The Parties advised that the contentions between them had been resolved and they now come before the Court seeking orders by consent.

  6. At the commencement of the hearing, oral submissions were taken on site from the following objectors, a number of whom provided further written and photographic submissions in support of their submissions relating to the Applicant’s proposed development:

  1. Mr Malcolm McDonald, Principal of the Beaumont Road Public School in Killara, on behalf of 295 families within the school community, who, he said, were opposed to the application for the following reasons:

  1. the Applicant’s proposed an increase in numbers of children attending the centre in Manning Road would lead to an increase in traffic in the vicinity of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Zaki 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1614
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zaki v Ku-ring-gai Council before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales involved an application by the Applicant to modify development consent previously granted for a property located in the Ku-ring-gai area. The Council opposed the application, and the matter was brought before the Court for determination. The Applicant sought to modify the previously granted development consent in order to allow for changes to the property's design and layout, including alterations to the building's façade and the addition of a balcony.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the proposed modifications were consistent with the original development consent and whether the modifications would result in any adverse environmental or community impacts. The Court also had to consider whether the modifications were in accordance with the relevant planning policies and guidelines, as well as whether the modifications were reasonable and necessary for the proper use and development of the property.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Court found that the proposed modifications were consistent with the original development consent and would not result in any significant adverse environmental or community impacts. The Court also found that the modifications were in accordance with the relevant planning policies and guidelines, and that they were reasonable and necessary for the proper use and development of the property. As a result, the Court approved the Applicant's application to modify the development consent, subject to the conditions of consent set out in the Court's orders. The exhibits were returned, except for Exhibits A and 2, which were to be retained by the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) By consent, the appeal is upheld

(2) The Applicant’s application to modify development consent DA067/11 granted by the Court on 20 March 2013 in proceedings 2012/10054, is approved, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto at Annexure ‘A’.

(3) The exhibits are returned, except Exhibits A and 2.

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.