Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Robertson and anor v Ryde City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1202 Hearing dates: 14 & 15 July 2011 Decision date: 15 July 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Moore SC Decision: (1)The appeal is upheld;
(2)Condition 14 of Development Consent 2000/242 is amended by the deletion of the words in the second line "both lots" and the substitution in lieu thereof of the words "Lot 1";
(3)Condition 15 of Development Consent 2000/242 is amended by the deletion of the words "both lots" in line 2 and in lieu there the words "Lot 1" are to be substituted;
(4)Pursuant to s 39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the respondent is directed to take such steps as are necessary to amend the records of the Land Titles Office to give effect to the amendments that have been made to conditions 14 and 15 of the conditions of Development Consent 2000/242; and
(5)The exhibits, other than Exhibits A, B, 1 and 6, are returned.
Catchwords: Subdivision; flood mapped land; restrictive covenant on allotment with existing dwelling; inconsistence in application of Development Control Plan Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Conveyancing Act 1919Cases Cited: Fortunate Investments Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 70; (2000) 114 LGERA 1
Parrott v Kiama Council [2004] NSWLEC 77
Stockland Development v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472
Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578Category: Principal judgment Parties: P & Z Robertson (Applicants)
Ryde City Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicants in person
Mr M Cottom
Kells the Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10344 of 2011
EXTEMPORE Judgment
In January 2008, Bewsher Consulting Pty Limited completed the preparation of a flood study known as the Eastwood and Terrys Creek Floodplain Draft Flood Risk Study and Plan (the Flood Study). It is the common position, as I understand it in these proceedings, that that plan has subsequently been adopted by Ryde City Council (the council).
The flood study shows, amongst other things, significant flood affectation of a number of properties that are located on the southern side of Vimiera Road Eastwood, including a property known as 26B Vimiera Road and a property owned by the applicants that had, prior to its subdivision, been known as 32 Vimiera Road.
The applicants applied for approval to subdivide their property and to erect, at the rear of the subdivided property, a new dwelling (in which they now reside). That subdivision has taken effect and has resulted in two allotments that have been created - Lots 1 and 2 in a deposited plan registered with the Land Titles Office. A number of conditions of registration of the plan of subdivision were contained in the council's conditions of consent. These comprised Conditions 14, 15 and 16, which were originally imposed in August 2001 and which were, with respect to Condition 15, amended by a modification application in August 2003.
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Robertson v Ryde City Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] NSWLEC 1202
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the conditions 14 and 15, which referred to "both lots", were correctly imposed on the appellant's property, which was only Lot 1. This involved interpreting the terms of the development consent and examining whether the council had the authority to impose conditions on a property not explicitly covered by the consent. The court also needed to consider whether the conditions could be amended to correctly apply to Lot 1, and if so, what the legal consequences of such an amendment would be.
The Land and Environment Court found that the conditions as worded were not correctly applicable to the appellant's property, which was only Lot 1. The court held that the conditions should have referred only to Lot 1, not "both lots". The court further found that the conditions could be amended to correctly apply to Lot 1. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the conditions were amended by deleting the words "both lots" and substituting "Lot 1". The court directed the respondent to take necessary steps to amend the records of the Land Titles Office to reflect these changes.
The final orders included upholding the appeal, amending conditions 14 and 15 of the development consent to correctly refer to "Lot 1", directing the respondent to update the Land Titles Office records, and returning the exhibits not specifically mentioned in the orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1)The appeal is upheld;
(2)Condition 14 of Development Consent 2000/242 is amended by the deletion of the words in the second line "both lots" and the substitution in lieu thereof of the words "Lot 1";
(3)Condition 15 of Development Consent 2000/242 is amended by the deletion of the words "both lots" in line 2 and in lieu there the words "Lot 1" are to be substituted;
(4)Pursuant to s 39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the respondent is directed to take such steps as are necessary to amend the records of the Land Titles Office to give effect to the amendments that have been made to conditions 14 and 15 of the conditions of Development Consent 2000/242; and
(5)The exhibits, other than Exhibits A, B, 1 and 6, are returned.
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.