Grimshaw v Ku-ring-gai Council [2023] NSWLEC 1635

Grimshaw v Ku-ring-gai Council [2023] NSWLEC 1635

The Development Control Orders were validly issued by Council after compliance with the statutory procedural fairness requirements, and the parties' agreed modification was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. There was therefore no jurisdictional impediment to upholding the appeal and modifying the Development Control Orders under s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Miscellaneous Appeal / Conciliation Conference Agreement and Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Control Orders modified.
Legal Topics
['development Control Order' 'demolish Works Order' 'restore Works Order' 'state Heritage Item' 'conciliation Conference' 'modification of Order']
['planning and Environment' 'heritage' 'administrative Law'] ['development Control Order' 'demolish Works Order' 'restore Works Order' 'state Heritage Item' 'conciliation Conference' 'modification of Order']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Miscellaneous Appeal / Conciliation Conference Agreement and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Development Control Orders issued by Ku-ring-gai Council were validly issued in compliance with statutory procedural fairness requirements.' "Whether the Court could uphold the appeal and modify the Development Control Orders under s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with the parties' agreement reached at the s 34 conciliation conference."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Development Control Orders were validly issued by Council after compliance with the statutory procedural fairness requirements, and the parties' agreed modification was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. There was therefore no jurisdictional impediment to upholding the appeal and modifying the Development Control Orders under s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Control Orders modified.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Pursuant to s 8.18(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Development Control Orders the subject of this appeal are modified in the terms of the modified Development Control Order annexed and marked A.']