Debb Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1027


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

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. 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’.

  3. 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)

Details
AGLC
Debb Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1027
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1027
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Debb Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council, the court was presented with a dispute concerning the enforcement of a planning condition attached to a development approval. The appellant, Debb Investments, challenged the enforcement of a condition requiring the removal of a carport, arguing it was unenforceable due to procedural irregularities in the approval process. The respondent, Ku-ring-gai Council, sought to enforce the condition, claiming it was valid and enforceable.

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.