The Trustee for the Woodbury Rd Unit Trust trading as PRSM Holdings Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1127

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Trustee for the Woodbury Rd Unit Trust trading as PRSM Holdings Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1127 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 21 March 2019 Date of orders: 01 April 2019 Decision date: 01 April 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Horton C Decision: See [15] below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL against deemed refusal - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 2015 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land Texts Cited: Child Care Planning Guideline Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (DCP) 2018 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Trustee for the Woodbury Rd Unit Trust trading as PRSM Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant) L Finn, Hones Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/263223 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This Class 1 appeal concerns a development application brought before the Court under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal of DA0262/18 for the demolition of existing structures, removal of 14 trees and construction of a 95 place child care centre and associated works at the property known as 318 Mona Vale Road (aka 58 Woodbury Road), St Ives. 2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 21 March 2019. I presided over the conciliation conference. 3. 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. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent to the development application. A signed agreement prepared in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act was filed with the Court on 21 March 2019. 4. The parties ask me to approve their decision as set out in the s 34 agreement before the Court. In general terms, the agreement approves the development subject to amended plans that were prepared by the applicant, and noting that the final detail of the works and plans are specified in the agreed conditions of development consent annexed to the s 34 agreement. 5. 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. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised, pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP), State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (SEPP (Child Care)), and State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land (SEPP 55). The parties explained to me during the conference as to how the requirements of the SEPPs have been satisfied in order to allow the Court to make the relevant orders.