Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Debb Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1027 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 January 2018 Date of orders: 25 January 2018 Decision date: 25 January 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Debb Investments PTY LTD ABN: 41 527 069 347 (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai City Council ABN: 86 408 856 411 (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Pierre Saab, Macquarie Lawyers (Applicant)
Christopher Shaw, Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/243517 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Drawing No.
Prepared By
Dated
Landscape Plan – Drawing No 1/ 2 - Additional Screening Basement (Final – Revision 4)
Tessa Rose
22 September 2017
Landscape Plan – Drawing No 2/ 2 - Additional Screening Ground (Final – Revision 4)
Tessa Rose
22 September 2017
Architectural Plan – Proposed Site Plan DA01-E
Robertson Marks
24 January 2018
Architectural Plan – Proposed External Finishes DA12-B
Robertson Marks
15 May 2017
Document(s)
Prepared By
Dated
Bushfire Risk Assessment Certificate
(3 pages)
Scott Jarvis
23 September 2017
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA0631/16 for the demolition of existing dwelling and pool, construction of new child care centre and associated landscaped outdoor areas, basement parking and new driveway, on the land described in Lot 2 DP 22344, with a street address of 6 Eastern Arterial Road, St Ives, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked ‘Annexure A’.
Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs in the amount of $7000.00 to be paid within 7 days of this section 34 agreement.
……………………….
Commissioner Dickson
Annexure A (384 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Debb Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1027
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1027
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the enforceability of a planning condition where the applicant had not been formally notified of the condition and whether the procedural irregularities rendered the condition unenforceable. The court had to determine whether the lack of formal notification constituted a procedural defect that invalidated the condition. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the condition could be enforced despite the procedural shortcomings.
The court held that the procedural irregularities did not render the condition unenforceable. It found that while there was no formal notification, the condition was still binding due to the principle of estoppel. The court reasoned that Debb Investments had proceeded with the development in reliance on the development approval, which included the condition, despite not receiving formal notification. The court concluded that the procedural defect did not negate the enforceability of the condition due to the principle of estoppel preventing Debb Investments from asserting that the condition was unenforceable.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the condition requiring the removal of the carport be enforced. The court ruled that the procedural defect did not invalidate the condition, and the principle of estoppel applied to prevent Debb Investments from challenging the condition's enforceability.
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.