Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: CPDM Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1565 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 October 2018 Date of orders: 31 October 2018 Decision date: 31 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish 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 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: CPDM Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
H Kahagalle, Addisons Lawyers (Applicant)
C Ters, Hones Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/39974 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in Condition 1 under the heading "Stage 2" and Condition 1 under the heading "Stage 3" of the conditions annexed and marked "A".
The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $15,000.00 within 21 days of the date of this agreement.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA 0540/16 for:
Stage 2 of a staged development, which consists of demolition of all existing buildings and structures and construction of three buildings comprising 19 townhouses, two (2) levels of basement car parking and associated landscaping works at 16 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield; and
Stage 3 of a staged development, which consists of demolition of all existing buildings and structures and construction of two dwellings at 18 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield, driveways and associated landscaping works,
is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure "A".
……………………….
S Bish
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (333 KB, pdf)
Stage 2 Architectural Plans_Part1 (9.83 MB, pdf)
Stage 2 Architectural Plans_Part2 (9.25 MB, pdf)
Stage 2 Architectural Plans_Part3 (7.46 MB, pdf)
Stage 2 Landscape Plans (8.10 MB, pdf)
Stage 2 Engineering Plans (5.29 MB, pdf)
Stage 3 Architectural Plans (7.31 MB, pdf)
Stage 3 Landscape Plans (7.15 MB, pdf)
Stage 3 Engineering Plans (3.46 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- CPDM Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1565
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1565
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's proposed development complied with the relevant provisions of the Local Environment Plan 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the development application met the criteria set out in Clause 19.3.2 of the Plan, which relates to the maximum floor area ratio for certain types of residential buildings. The applicant argued that their development was in compliance, while the Council contended that it was not.
The court held that the applicant's proposed development did not comply with Clause 19.3.2 of the Local Environment Plan 2009. The judge detailed that the maximum floor area ratio specified in the Clause was not met by the proposed development, and therefore, the development application was not in accordance with the Plan. The court also found that the Council's decision to refuse the application was correct and lawful.
The court ordered that the applicant's appeal against the Council's decision be dismissed. The court further ordered that the applicant pay the Council's costs of the proceeding. The applicant was given the option to make an application for review of the decision to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of the judgment.
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.