Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: CPDM Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1448 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 May 2018 Date of orders: 24 August 2018 Decision date: 24 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon SC Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: CPDM Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsels:
Solicitors:
C McEwen, SC (Applicant)
M Staunton (Respondent)
Addisons Lawyers (Applicant)
Hones Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/333357 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 granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in Schedule B Condition 1 of the conditions annexed and marked "A".
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA 0398/16 for:
stage 1 of a staged development comprising concept proposal for 43 town-houses, two new residential lots including two dwellings and a private road; and
the stage 1 development comprising 23 town-houses, private road, parking and landscaping works,
at 16-18 Beaconsfield Parade and 9B Gladstone Parade, Lindfield be approved in accordance with Annexure “A”.
The request pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to vary the floor space ratio control in clause 4.4 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 is upheld.
The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $25,000.00 within 28 days of the date of this agreement.
……………………….
Susan Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (185 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- CPDM Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1448
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1448
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the council had complied with relevant statutory requirements in relation to the sale of the property, and whether the sale would cause a significant loss of value to the plaintiff's adjoining property. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff had established a sufficient case for an injunction to be granted.
The court found that the council had complied with relevant statutory requirements and that the sale was therefore lawful. The court also found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a significant loss of value to their property as a result of the sale. The court held that the plaintiff had not established a sufficient case for an injunction to be granted, and dismissed the proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were speculative and that there was no evidence to support them. The court also held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any urgency or irreparable harm that would warrant the grant of an injunction.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the proceedings and ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.
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.