NSWNSWLEC

Wollongong City Council v Vic Vellar Nominees Pty Ltd

[2011] NSWLEC 60

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2011-03-03|Before: Biscoe J, Mr J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2011-03-03

Before

Biscoe J, Mr J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

[1]

BACKGROUND 4In August 1991 the Council resolved to amend the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 ( WLEP 1990 ) to allow two dwellings to be constructed on land owned by Vic Vellar adjacent to the Illawarra escarpment, being Lot 21 in DP 838636 ( the Land ) in accordance with a written agreement between the Council and Vic Vellar. Part of that agreement required Vic Vellar to dedicate Lot 22 DP 838636 to the public. At that time the Land was zoned 7(b) under WLEP 1990 in which dwelling houses were permitted. 5On 1 October 1993 amendment No 38 to WLEP 1990 was gazetted. The amendment rezoned the land zone 7(a), in which dwelling houses were prohibited, except for two semicircular areas. Accordingly, development of dwelling houses was still permissible in these semicircular areas. 6On 29 October 1993 amendment No 53 to WLEP 1990 was gazetted. This amendment enabled two dwellings to be constructed on the Land. 7On 3 November 1993 the Council granted consent to Vic Vellar's development application for the construction of those two dwellings. 8On 23 August 1994 the Council granted building approval for the two dwellings. 9On 24 August 1994, Vic Vellar dedicated Lot 22 to the Council. 10Construction commenced in late 1994 and ceased in about late 1998. 11On 2 September 2008 the Council refused Vic Vellar's request to recommence construction. 12On 26 February 2010 WLEP 1990 commenced.

[2]

Pending proceedings 13The four pending proceedings between the parties are as follows: (a)Class 1 proceedings 10434 of 2009 ( Subdivision Appeal ). On 1 July 2009 Vic Vellar filed an appeal against the Council's refusal of DA 2009/353 for a two lot subdivision of the Land. (b)Class 4 proceedings 40838 of 2009 ( Enforcement Proceedings ). On 6 November 2009 the Council filed a summons against Vic Vellar seeking a declaration that the two partially constructed buildings on the Land are not "existing dwelling houses" for the purposes of 13(2)(a) of WLEP 1990. The Council also seeks a declaration that subdivision of the Land would, if carried out, result in a contravention of WLEP 1990 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ( EPA Act ) and must be refused. In its filed defence against these Enforcement Proceedings Vic Vellar claims that the buildings are "existing dwelling houses". Vic Vellar also contends that the Council is estopped from acting contrary to the written agreement that the parties entered into. (c)Class 1 proceedings 10384 of 2010 ( Modification Appeal ). On 21 May 2010 Vic Vellar filed an appeal against the Council's deemed refusal of an application to modify development consent DA 1992/772. Vic Vellar seeks modification in respect of the approved location of the southern and northern dwellings on the Land, so that the development consent and the building approval authorise the construction of the buildings. (d)Class 4 proceedings 40712 of 2010 ( Damages Claim ). On 2 July 2010 Vic Vellar filed a claim against the Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for damages for breach of contract, negligence and misrepresentation. On 1 September 2010 the Supreme Court ordered that those proceedings be transferred to this Court pursuant to s 149B of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. 14On 31 December 2010 I answered separate and preliminary questions as follows in Wollongong City Council v Vic Vellar Nominees Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 266 at [86]: (a) Each of the northern building and southern building on Lot 21 in DP 838638 is not an "existing dwelling-house" for the purpose of cl 13(2) of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 because of: (i) the reasons identified in paragraphs 24(a) and (b) of the Council's Second Further Amended Points of Claim in its Class 4 proceedings; (ii) the reasons identified in paragraph 25(a) and (b) of the Council's Second Further Amended Points of Claim in its Class 4 proceedings; (b) On the assumption that the Council was to prove the matters identified in paragraphs 24(d) and 25(e) of its Second Further Amended Points of Claim in its Class 4 proceedings, the northern building and the southern building on Lot 21 in DP 838638 are not "existing dwelling-houses" for the purpose of cl 13(2) of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990. 15I ordered Vic Vellar to pay the Council's costs of the preliminary questions. 16I held that the two buildings were not existing dwelling-houses for three reasons: (a)their state of incompleteness: at [64] - [66]; (b)assuming they were built in the wrong location, this was contrary to the development consent and the building approval at [84] - [86]; (c)assuming they were constructed at least partially in a zone in which dwelling houses were prohibited: at [84] - [86].

Submissions 21The Council submits that, having succeeded on the preliminary question, it is entitled to summary judgment in both the Enforcement Proceedings and the Subdivision Appeal under UCPR 28.4. 22However, in the Enforcement Proceedings there are two unresolved issues. First, the estoppel defence raised by Vic Vellar; and secondly, the argument whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant relief. Vic Vellar says that the discretionary issues include: (a)the manner in which the zoning error, and therefore potentially one of the grounds upon which the dwellings are not "existing dwelling houses", arose; (b)the fact that the Council has refused to allow any building work to be completed; (c)by the method proposed in Vic Vellar's motion, the potential exists for the circumstances to be cured if (i) the Modification Appeal is determined by granting consent; and (ii) building works ensue. 23The Council seeks a declaration that neither building is an "existing dwelling house" for the purposes of the WLEP 1990. Vic Vellar submits that it ought to be entitled to argue that there is no utility in that declaration because: (a)the matter could have been dealt with in the Subdivision Appeal rather than as separate proceedings; (b)no consequential relief is sought, nor would it be appropriate given the course proposed by Vic Vellar; (c)the preliminary questions proceeded in part on assumed facts; and (d)the dispute should be resolved by the outcomes of the other three cases in which Vic Vellar is the applicant. 24The Council also seeks a declaration that the proposed subdivision of land would contravene the WLEP 1990 and the EPA Act. Vic Vellar submits that declaration cannot or should not be made because: (a)it is subject to consideration of the defence; (b)it is also dependent upon a state of affairs at a given time; and (c)that state of affairs can change and Vic Vellar proposes a mechanism to do so. 25As for the Subdivision Appeal, Vic Vellar submits that it should not be deprived of the opportunity to subdivide the land because: (a)it ought to have the opportunity to respond to the ruling on the preliminary point, which is within the spirit of s 124(3)(a) of the EPA Act; (b)it proposes to do so without delay; (c)the only reason the buildings are not complete is because the Council told Vic Vellar to stop the works; (d)the legal difficulties have arisen because the dwellings have not been completed and because of a zoning error; (e)the course proposed by Vic Vellar would be dispositive of the need to determine the residue of the Enforcement Proceedings and the whole of the Damages Claim. 26Vic Vellar submits that it is appropriate to make the orders it seeks, including adjournment of the Enforcement Proceedings and the Subdivision Appeal, because: (a)based on the determination of the preliminary questions, if certain steps were taken, the subject dwelling houses could be "existing dwelling houses" for the purposes of cl 13(2) of WLEP 1990. (b)the first step is to have the Modification Appeal determined in its favour to meet the "wrong location" issue (noting that the Council will not currently tolerate work on the dwellings). The modification consent would be for a development permissible within the new zone and within the modified building footprints. It would make lawful what otherwise might be unlawful. (c)the second step, if the Modification Appeal is determined in its favour, would be to complete the building work so that they would be uncontroversially existing dwelling houses. This course would make lawful what otherwise might not be so. (d)the third step, on completion of the work, is for the Subdivision Appeal to proceed. 27The Council submits that Vic Vellar's application to adjourn the Enforcement Proceedings and the Subdivision Appeal should be refused for the following reasons: (a)Vic Vellar is bound by my judgment on the preliminary question and Vic Vellar's proposal is an attempt to circumvent that judgment; (b)there is no longer any issue remaining to be determined between the parties in the Enforcement Proceedings; (c)the fundamental basis for the Court ordering the separate question was that, if resolved in Council's favour, it would leave only Vic Vellar's pleaded defences remaining; (d)Vic Vellar, having elected to have its subdivision application determined on the basis of the facts as they then existed, cannot now resile from that election; (e)Vic Vellar's proposal is contrary to the important principle of finality in litigation; (f)there is no evidence of any prejudice to Vic Vellar; (g)an adjournment would result in a very long delay; (h)the Vic Vellar proposal does not work because it does not account for the need for the estoppel defence to be resolved, and it takes no account of the unfinished state of construction of the northern dwelling; and (i)permitting Vic Vellar to proceed in the manner for which it now contends would not be conducive to the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute.