Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Harwood v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1081 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 December 2017 and 18 January 2018 Date of orders: 23 February 2018 Decision date: 23 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon SC 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: Robert Harwood (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor
Caitlin McJannett, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Jannelle Amy (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/240061 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 granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in condition 1 of the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A” and included at Annexure “B”.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs ‘thrown away’ as agreed or assessed as a result of the amendments referred to above for the purposes of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The written request to vary the height standard set out in "Clause 4.6 to Clause 4.3 of Sutherland LEP 2015 Exceptions to Development Standards – Height Variation" prepared by ABC Planning Pty Ltd dated January 2018 pursuant to clause 4.6 of Sutherland Shire LEP 2015 is upheld.
The written request to vary the floor space ratio standard set out in "Clause 4.6 to Clause 4.4 of Sutherland LEP 2015 Exceptions to Development Standards – FSR Variation” prepared by ABC Planning Pty Ltd dated January 2018 pursuant to clause 4.6 of Sutherland Shire LEP 2015 is upheld.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application no. DA17/0158 for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and construction of a mixed use building at 283-283A Kingsway, Caringbah, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".
……………………….
Susan Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court
Annexure A (404 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (1.71 MB, pdf)
Amendments
23 February 2018 - Annexure A Word converted to PDF version
- AGLC
- Harwood v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1081
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1081
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the covenant restricting the use of the property was enforceable. Mr Harwood argued that the covenant was unreasonable and should not be enforced. The Council contended that the covenant was valid and enforceable and that it was necessary to protect the character of the area. The court was required to determine the validity and enforceability of the covenant, and whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances.
In considering the enforceability of the covenant, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). It held that the covenant was validly created and was binding on Mr Harwood as the owner of the burdened land. The court then considered the reasonableness of the covenant. It found that the covenant was reasonable and necessary to protect the character of the area and to prevent the establishment of a business on the property. The court held that the covenant was enforceable and that Mr Harwood was bound by its terms.
As a result, the court dismissed Mr Harwood's application to have the covenant declared unenforceable. The court found that the covenant was valid and enforceable and that it was reasonable in all the circumstances. The Sutherland Shire Council was entitled to enforce the covenant and to take such steps as were necessary to ensure that Mr Harwood complied with its terms. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the case.
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.