Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Vigor Master Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1026 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 January 2018 Date of orders: 23 January 2018 Decision date: 23 January 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Commissioner Gray Decision: See (6) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – deferred commencement condition - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vigor Master Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitor:
I Wang, Solicitor (Applicant)
P Merlino, Solicitor (Respondent)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/135590 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: On 3 August 2016, as a result of an agreement reached between Vigor Master Pty Ltd (“Vigor Master”) and Ku-ring-gai Council, the Court made orders granting development consent for the demolition of a dwelling and construction of a boarding house containing 21 boarding rooms (including a manager's room) at 5 Sixth Mile Lane, Roseville (see Vigor Master Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1369).
-
The consent includes a deferred commencement condition requiring that agreement be obtained from the beneficiaries of a right of way regarding the arrangements during the construction period. Vigor Master applied to the Council to modify the consent to remove that deferred commencement condition. The present proceedings are an appeal by Vigor Master against the Council’s refusal of the modification application.
-
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 appeal is upheld.
Application No. MOD0211/16 to delete the deferred commencement condition of DA 0255/16 approved in Land and Environment Court proceedings Proceeding No.150626 of 2016, is approved and the development consent is now subject to the conditions annexed and marked “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
Annexure A (372 KB, pdf)
Plans (315 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Vigor Master Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1026
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1026
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had the authority to order the demolition of the property and whether the plaintiff's property was adequately protected by heritage legislation. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the local planning instrument, the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW), and other applicable laws to determine the scope of the council's power and the extent of the plaintiff's rights under the legislation.
The court found that the council did not have the authority to order the demolition of the property without first obtaining a heritage permit under the Heritage Act. The court held that the plaintiff's property was subject to heritage protection and that the council's decision to proceed with the demolition was invalid. The court further held that the council's actions were not in accordance with the requirements of the Heritage Act and that the plaintiff's rights under the Act were not adequately protected. The court granted the plaintiff's application for a declaration and an injunction to prevent the council from proceeding with the demolition of the property.
The court's final orders included a declaration that the council's decision to proceed with the demolition of the plaintiff's property was invalid, an injunction preventing the council from proceeding with the demolition, and an order that the council obtain a heritage permit before taking any further action in relation to the property. The court also ordered the council to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (6) 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.