Ashfield Land Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1305


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Ashfield Land Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2020] NSWLEC 1305
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference 30 June 2020
Date of orders: 15 July 2020
Decision date: 15 July 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Clay AC
Decision:

See orders at [11] below

Catchwords:

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – residential flat building – modification of basement and parking – minor changes to building – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ashfield Land Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council
(Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Tyrell (Applicant) (Solicitor)
M Jenkins (Respondent) (Solicitor)

Solicitors:
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/346191
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an application pursuant to s 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to modify Development Consent DA 2016/276 issued by the Court in proceedings 148379 of 2017, by way of amendments to car parking, ground floor level, levels 1- 5 and western and southern elevations at 379 – 381 Liverpool Road, Ashfield (the site).

  2. On 30 June 2020 I presided over a conciliation conference between the parties pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (Court Act).

  3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement in principle as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The proposed decision was to grant leave to amend the modification application and to modify the development consent in the manner described below.

  4. On 1 July 2020 the parties lodged an agreement pursuant to s 34 of the Court Act.

  5. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement if the proposed decision the subject of the agreement is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  6. The parties’ agreement involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.56 of the EP&A Act to grant the application to modify the development consent.

  7. The parties have provided the following statement as to matters of jurisdiction:

“1. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

i. S4.56(1)(a) – the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

ii. Notification requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied, all submissions have been taken into consideration and Owner’s consent has been provided.

iii. The matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application have been taken into consideration.

2. Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

i. Land Use Table - the land is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential Zone and B4 Mixed Use Zone. The proposed development is permissible with consent.

ii. The modifications relate to amendments to carparking and design changes to the previously approved dwellings. The modification application does not seek to vary any development standards and does not result in any non-compliance with the relevant legislation.

3. SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land

i. As abovementioned, the modification application amends an approved development.

ii. There are no changes that would impact the original consent.

iii. The original conditions of consent include conditions regarding the remediation of land which will be retained in the modified consent (Condition 11).

4. SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

i. An updated SEPP 65 apartment design guide statement was submitted with the modification application and accepted by the respondent.”

  1. Having considered the material provided to the Court, I agree with the parties’ summary as to the necessary jurisdictional matters and am therefore satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the Court Act.

  2. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  3. The parties have not raised, and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Further, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the modification application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.

  4. The Court orders:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend the modification application and rely on the amended plans as follows:

No.

Revision

Title

Prepared by

Amendment Date

S4.55-000

B

Title Sheet & Drawing Schedule

Beta Solutions

30/03/2020

S4.55-10

A

Grasscrete Design Intent

Beta Solutions

30/03/2020

S4.55-101

B

Lower Ground Level 1

Beta Solutions

30/03/2020

S4.55-102

B

Ground Level

Beta Solutions

30/03/2020

S4.55-303

B

Section C-C/ D-D/ E-E/ F-F

Beta Solutions

30/03/2020

S4.55-9043

B

Landscape Calculations 1

Beta Solutions

30/03/2020

S4.55-9044

B

Landscape Calculations 2

Beta Solutions

30/03/2020

S4.55-9047

B

Deep Soil Area Calculations

Beta Solutions

30/03/2020

PAM01-DA-001

G

Landscape Masterplan

Sym Studio

20/05/2020

PAM01-DA-002

G

Landscape Planting Plan

Sym Studio

20/05/2020

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Modification Application seeking to modify Development Application DA 2016/276 issued by the Court in proceedings 148379 of 2017, by way of amendments to car parking, ground floor level, levels 1-5 and western and southern elevations at 379 – 381 Liverpool Road, Ashfield is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

…………………………

P Clay

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (456951, pdf)

**********

Amendments

15 July 2020 - Amendment from "MODIFICATION" to "MODIFICATION APPLICATION" in the catchwords section on the cover page.

Details
AGLC
Ashfield Land Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2020] NSWLEC 1305
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1305
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Ashfield Land Pty Ltd sought a declaration that a decision by the Inner West Council to refuse approval of a development application was invalid, and for an order mandating the council to approve the application. The dispute centred on the council's refusal to grant planning approval for the proposed development on land located in Ashfield. The plaintiff argued that the decision was flawed and did not comply with the relevant statutory provisions. The defendant council contended that the decision was lawful and within its discretion.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to refuse approval was based on relevant considerations, whether it was open to the council to make the decision in question, and whether there were any procedural defects. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law regarding the exercise of planning powers by local councils. The court also needed to determine if the council's decision was unreasonable and whether the procedural fairness principles were adhered to.

The court found that the council's decision was based on relevant considerations and was within its statutory powers. The judge concluded that the council had exercised its discretion properly and that the decision was not unreasonable. The court found no procedural defects in the decision-making process and held that the decision was valid. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and refused the orders sought. The refusal to approve the development application was upheld as lawful and appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [11] 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.