Ahmed v Parramatta City Council

Case [2007] NSWLEC 856



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Ahmed v Parramatta City Council [2007] NSWLEC 856
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Mohammed Ahmed

RESPONDENT
Parramatta City Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10875 of 2007
CORAM: Moore C
KEY ISSUES: Development Application :-
DATES OF HEARING: 8 and 22 November 2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 22 November 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr A J J Thompson, solicitor
Ritchie & Castellan

RESPONDENT
Mr P Marincowitz, solicitor
DLA Phillips Fox


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      MOORE C

      22 November 2007

      10875 of 2007 Mohammed Ahmed v Parramatta City Council

      JUDGMENT

      This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

      The consequence of the Court’s decision in this appeal is the grant of development consent subject to detailed conditions. These conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but are available for inspection at the Council. In addition, a copy the Court’s Orders and the conditions may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders and conditions are available on the Court’s web site at

1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979 concerning the refusal by Parramatta City Council (the Council) on 9 July 2007 of a development application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a single storey childcare centre at 21 Greenleaf Street, Constitution Hill (the site) - being Lot 1 Deposited Plan 216006.

2 I visited the site in company with the legal representatives of the parties on 8 November 2007 and heard informal evidence from nearby residents and those advising the applicant and respondent; that was dealt with during the first stage of a conference pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. However, it was not possible, although the parties had reached agreement between themselves, for reasons I explained to the parties on site, for me to proceed to deal with the matter by consent pursuant to s 34(3)(a) as I was not satisfied that the state of the conditions then proffered by the respondent and agreed to by the applicant, were ones which I could lawfully make. The parties therefore agreed to me proceeding to hear and determine the application pursuant to s 34(3)(b)(ii).

3 I am satisfied that all of the issues which were raised by the Council and by the objectors have been resolved by a variety of modifications now incorporated in the plans and conditions. In addition, I am satisfied, as a consequence of the evidence given this morning by Mr Day, an acoustic engineer retained by the applicant, that the proposed acoustic barrier on the southern side to protect the upper level bedrooms on the property which is 19 Greenleaf Street are appropriate and that there is no necessity to extend that barrier any further along the southern boundary or to incorporate one at all in the northern boundary.

4 I am satisfied, as well, that the proposed fencing treatment and stopping restrictions along the frontage of the site obviate the necessity for there to be any stopping or other parking restrictions outside 19 Greenleaf Street, thus resolving one of the issues put on behalf of the residents of that property.

5 I have considered the questions of the adequacy or otherwise of the waste disposal and storage arrangements of the terms of the now revised plan of management and the conditions agreed to between the parties, including some late amendments to the landscape condition to provide an element of softening to the presentation to the streetscape. These are now acceptable.

6 I am satisfied, under all the circumstances, that it is now appropriate to uphold the appeal and to grant development consent to the application as amended by the plans, which were tendered today and the revised versions of the conditions of consent.

Tim Moore


Commissioner of the Court

Details
AGLC
Ahmed v Parramatta City Council [2007] NSWLEC 856
Case
[2007] NSWLEC 856
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ahmed v Parramatta City Council, the applicant, Mohammed Ahmed, appealed against the decision of the Parramatta City Council to refuse a development application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a single storey childcare centre at 21 Greenleaf Street, Constitution Hill. The dispute was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the development application should be approved, subject to certain conditions, in light of the modifications made to the plans and conditions to address concerns raised by the council and objectors. The court also had to consider whether the proposed acoustic barrier and fencing treatment would adequately address the concerns of nearby residents.

The court, after visiting the site and hearing evidence from nearby residents, determined that the modifications to the plans and conditions had adequately addressed the concerns raised by the council and objectors. The court was satisfied that the proposed acoustic barrier was appropriate and that there was no need to extend it further along the southern boundary or to incorporate one at all in the northern boundary. The court also found that the proposed fencing treatment and stopping restrictions along the frontage of the site would obviate the necessity for any stopping or other parking restrictions outside 19 Greenleaf Street. The court further found that the waste disposal and storage arrangements, as well as the landscape condition, were now acceptable. Consequently, the court decided to uphold the appeal and grant development consent to the application, subject to the detailed conditions.

The final orders of the court granted development consent to the applicant subject to the detailed conditions, which were not reproduced as part of the decision but were available for inspection at the Council. The court also noted that a copy of the Orders and conditions could be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee, with details of the fee payable and the process for obtaining a copy available on the Court’s website.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.