Bailey v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 35

Bailey v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 35

The applicants failed to establish any ground of review. The Council complied with the statutory notification and consultation requirements and, even if procedural fairness applied beyond those requirements, the applicants had adequate opportunities to address both the planning proposal and the changed...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging a Council Decision to Vary a Planning Proposal to Amend a Local Environmental Plan Heritage Schedule / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'planning Proposal to Make Local Environmental Plan' 'heritage Listing and Delisting' 'procedural Fairness' 'relevant Considerations' 'manifest Unreasonableness']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law' 'heritage Law'] ['judicial Review' 'planning Proposal to Make Local Environmental Plan' 'heritage Listing and Delisting' 'procedural Fairness' 'relevant Considerations' 'manifest Unreasonableness']

Source-derived case record

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 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging a Council Decision to Vary a Planning Proposal to Amend a Local Environmental Plan Heritage Schedule / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Council denied procedural fairness by resolving to vary the planning proposal so as to retain the heritage listing of 7 Grosvenor Street, Wahroonga.' 'Whether the Council failed to consider relevant matters or proceeded on inaccurate or misleading information concerning the heritage significance of the property.' "Whether the Council's decision to retain the heritage listing was manifestly unreasonable, illogical or irrational."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish any ground of review. The Council complied with the statutory notification and consultation requirements and, even if procedural fairness applied beyond those requirements, the applicants had adequate opportunities to address both the planning proposal and the changed recommendation. The alleged further information was the 6 April 2018 report re-evaluating the 2017 heritage assessment, which had been made available. The Council did not fail to consider relevant matters and the materials before it were not shown to be false or misleading in the alleged respects. The decision was reasonably open to the Council because the heritage assessment and the...

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are dismissed.' "The applicants are to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings."]