Aplus Architecture Pty Ltd v Camden Council

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Aplus Architecture Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2022] NSWLEC 1533
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference 1 July 2022, 5 September 2022 final submission 12 September 2022
Date of orders: 28 September 2022
Decision date: 28 September 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh C
Decision:

Refer to [36]

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Camden Local Environmental Plan 2010, cll 2.3, 2.7, 4.3, 4.6, 5.21, 7.4

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 8.7, 8.15

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 55

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 39

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 9, ss 9.4, 9.5

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, Ch 4, cl 4.6

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, ss 2.122, 2.48, 4.7, 4.9

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Aplus Architecture Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Camden Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Jaku, Jaku Legal (Applicant)
L Raffaele, Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/78417
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: These proceedings, brought under Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction, are an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal of Development Application No. DA/2021/1789 (DA) by Camden Council.

  2. The DA, as amended, seeks consent for the consolidation of five lots into one, demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey mixed use development and associated matters at 8 – 10 Queen Street and 5 – 9 Coghill Street, Narellan (Lot 1 in DP 507300, Lot 1 in DP 813217, Lots 73 and 75 in DP 752045 and Lot 74 in DP 758753) (site).

  3. In regard to the amendments, I note the advice of the parties provided within the documentation filed with the Court on 12 September 2022, that:

  1. Camden Council, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed to the amendment of the application (pursuant to cl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000) to accord with the plans and documents at Condition 1.0(2) of Annexure A.

  2. The amendments were lodged on the NSW planning portal on 9 September 2022.

  3. The Applicant has subsequently filed the amendments with the Court on 12 September 2022.

Conciliation and agreement between the parties

  1. The Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), which was held, initially, on 1 July 2022, and at which I presided. After more time was given, the parties have filed an agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties.

  2. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision, provided it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Jurisdiction

  1. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Aplus Architecture Pty Ltd v Camden 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 1533
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aplus Architecture Pty Ltd contested the Camden Council's decision to deny their application for a development approval. The dispute reached the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Aplus sought to establish a commercial development on a property they owned, which the Council refused to approve. The reasons for refusal included concerns about the potential environmental impact and non-compliance with local planning policies.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Council's decision was lawful and whether it had properly considered all relevant factors. The legal issues included whether the Council acted within its statutory powers, correctly applied the relevant planning policies and environmental considerations, and provided adequate reasons for its decision.

The court found that the Council had not adequately considered the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding environment. It was held that the Council's decision lacked sufficient reasons and did not properly weigh the environmental concerns against the potential benefits of the development. The court also noted that the Council had failed to consider an alternative proposal that Aplus had submitted. Consequently, the court set aside the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

Refer to [36]

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.