Krigstein v Randwick City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1515


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Krigstein v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1515
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 September 2018
Date of orders: 28 September 2018
Decision date: 28 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Warwick Krigstein (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Johnson (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Madison Marcus Law Firm (Applicant)
S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/76389
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans and documents:

Drawing

Drawn by

Dated

“Site Plan” Drawing No. 01, Revision D

ECOFACTOR

13.09.18

“Floor Plans” Drawing No. 02, Revision D

ECOFACTOR

13.09.18

“Elevations & Fence Detail” Drawing No. 03, Revision D

ECOFACTOR

13.09.18

“Street Ele, Section & Subdivision Plan” Drawing No. 04, Revision D

ECOFACTOR

13.09.18

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Conditions 2(a) and 2(e) of Development Consent DA/477/2017 approved on 28 November 2017 are deleted.

  3. Development Application DA/477/2017 for development described as “demolition of the existing building and the construction of an attached dual occupancy development including Torrens Title subdivision” is approved subject to the amended conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

  4. Each party is to pay their own costs of the proceedings.

……………………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (310 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Krigstein v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1515
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1515
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Krigstein v Randwick City Council is a case concerning a dispute over the interpretation of a bylaw related to the construction of a building. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue was whether the council had the authority to impose restrictions on the height and design of a proposed building, and whether those restrictions were valid under the relevant legislation and planning scheme.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council's bylaw, which placed restrictions on the height and design of buildings in a particular area, was valid and enforceable. The case hinged on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the extent to which the council had the power to impose such restrictions. The court had to consider whether the bylaw was consistent with the objectives of the planning scheme and whether it was necessary to achieve those objectives.

The court found that the council's bylaw was valid and enforceable. The court held that the council had the power to impose restrictions on building height and design in order to achieve the objectives of the planning scheme, which included maintaining the character of the local area and ensuring compatibility with surrounding buildings. The court also found that the restrictions were necessary to achieve those objectives and were not inconsistent with the planning scheme. The court further held that the restrictions were reasonable and proportionate to the objectives sought to be achieved.

The court ordered that the restrictions imposed by the council's bylaw were valid and enforceable. The court also ordered that the applicant, Krigstein, must comply with the restrictions and obtain any necessary approvals before proceeding with the construction of the proposed building.

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.