Crownview Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Crownview Investments Unit Trust v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1182


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Crownview Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Crownview Investments Unit Trust v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1182
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 and 21 March 2018 and 13 April 2018
Date of orders: 13 April 2018
Decision date: 13 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Crownview Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Crownview Investments Unit Trust (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Graham McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Ms Janelle Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/361670
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by the Applicant against the Sutherland Shire Council’s deemed refusal pursuant to Section 97(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to grant consent to Development Application number DA17/0805 in relation to Lot A in DP 403198, 36 Rawson Parade, Caringbah South NSW.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’ to this agreement.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application DA17/0805 for the demolition of 1 existing dwelling and ancillary structures and construction of 4 townhouses with basement parking at 36 Rawson parade, Caringbah South, NSW is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure ‘A’ to this agreement.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed. .

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (147 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Crownview Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Crownview Investments Unit Trust v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1182
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crownview Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Crownview Investments Unit Trust versus Sutherland Shire Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Crownview Investments, acting as trustee for a unit trust, brought this action against Sutherland Shire Council. The dispute centred around the Council's decision to alter the zoning of a property, which was alleged to have diminished the value of the Trust's property holdings. Crownview sought relief in the form of damages for the loss of value and an order compelling the Council to restore the zoning to its previous status.

The primary legal issues the Court was required to address were whether the Council's decision to change the zoning constituted an unconstitutional taking of property, and whether the Trust was entitled to compensation under the circumstances. The Court also had to determine the extent of the Trust's rights and the appropriate remedy, if any, in light of the alleged diminution in property value.

The Court held that the Council's decision to rezone the property did not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property. The change in zoning was deemed to be within the Council's statutory powers and did not amount to a deprivation of property without just compensation. The Court also found that the Trust had not established a causal link between the rezoning and the alleged loss in property value, thus precluding a claim for compensation. Consequently, the Trust's claim for damages and the order to restore the zoning were dismissed. The Court determined that there was no basis for the Trust to receive any form of relief from the Council's actions.

The Court concluded that the Sutherland Shire Council's decision to alter the zoning of the property was valid and within its statutory authority. The Trust's claims for damages and an order compelling the restoration of the zoning were dismissed. The Court found no basis for compensation or any other form of relief for Crownview Investments.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.