Attena Group Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1501


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Attena Group Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1501
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 October 2020
Date of orders: 20 October 2020
Decision date: 20 October 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

(1)   Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely upon the amended plans listed in Condition 1 at Annexure A.

(2) The appeal in respect of the property known as 285 Malabar Road, Maroubra NSW 2035 is upheld.

(3) Development Application DA/292/2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a dual occupancy development with pool, landscaping and associated works at 285 Malabar Road, Maroubra NSW 2035 is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – Attached dual occupancy development – amended plans – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Attena Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Boskovitz (Solicitor) (Applicant)
S Patterson (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Boskovitz Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/290264
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to ss 8.7 and 8.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by the Attena Group Pty Ltd (Applicant) against the Respondent’s deemed refusal of their development application DA/292/2019. The development application seeks consent for a dual occupancy development with pool and landscaping works at 285 Malabar Road, Maroubra.

  2. In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to s 4.16 of the EPA Act.

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 16 October 2020. Following the conciliation, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to them. The decision agreed upon is that the appeal is upheld, subject to the conditions of consent annexed to this judgment.

  4. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). I have formed this state of satisfaction for the following reasons:

  1. Pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012), the subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The use of the site for dual occupancy development is permissible with consent. I have had regard to the objectives of the zone in determining the application: 2.3(2) LEP 2012.

  2. The development complies with the development standards for minimum lot size, height and floor space ratio in LEP 2012.

  3. Clause 6.1 ‘Acid Sulfate soils’ applies to the site. I am satisfied that the proposed development meets the requirements of cl 6.1(3) of LEP 2012.

  4. Clause 6.2 ‘Earthworks’ applies to the site. I am satisfied that the proposed development meets the requirements of cl 6.2(3) of LEP 2012.

  5. Clause 6.4 ‘Stormwater Management’ applies to the site. I am satisfied that the proposed development meets the requirements of cl 6.4(3) of LEP 2012.

  6. Clause 6.7 of LEP 2012, Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, applies to the site. I am satisfied that the proposed development meets the requirements of cl 6.7(3) of LEP 2012.

  7. Clause 6.10 ‘Essential Services” applies to the site. I am satisfied that services essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required.

  8. An updated BASIX dated 4 September 2020 has been provided to satisfy the requirement of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

  9. State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (SEPP CM) applies to the site which is within the Coastal use area. As required by cl 14 of SEPP CM, in determining the application I have taken into consideration the matters at cl 14(1)(a) and cl 14(1)(c) of SEPP CM. Further, I am satisfied that the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any adverse impact listed at cl 14(1)(a) of SEPP CM. Finally, I am satisfied that the proposed development is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land: cl 15 SEPP CM.

  10. The Statement of Environmental Effects filed with the development application notes that the current and previous use of the land is for residential purpose. With regard to the consideration required at cl 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy 55—Remediation of Land, I accept that the likelihood of contamination is low. 

  11. The application was notified in accordance with the relevant development control plan and the submissions have been considered.

  1. 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.

  2. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, the parties have not raised, and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders.

  3. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely upon the amended plans listed in Condition 1 at Annexure A.

  2. The appeal in respect of the property known as 285 Malabar Road, Maroubra NSW 2035 is upheld.

  3. Development Application DA/292/2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a dual occupancy development with pool, landscaping and associated works at 285 Malabar Road, Maroubra NSW 2035 is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

…………………………

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (371691, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Attena Group Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1501
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1501
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Attena Group Pty Ltd sought to challenge the refusal of Randwick City Council to approve a development application for a property in Maroubra. The applicant sought judicial review of the council’s decision in the Land and Environment Court. The main dispute centred on whether the council’s refusal to approve the development application was lawful and whether the applicant should be granted relief in the form of approval subject to certain conditions. The applicant argued that the council’s refusal was unreasonable and based on incorrect findings of fact. The council, on the other hand, contended that its decision was made in accordance with the law and that the development was not suitable for the site.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and whether the applicant was entitled to relief in the form of approval subject to certain conditions. This involved determining whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of relevant planning policies and whether there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process. The court also had to consider whether the proposed development was consistent with the surrounding area and whether it would cause undue harm to the environment.

In its decision, the court found that the council's refusal to approve the development application was unlawful. The court held that the council had failed to properly consider certain relevant planning policies and that its decision was based on incorrect findings of fact. The court also found that the proposed development was consistent with the surrounding area and would not cause undue harm to the environment. As a result, the court granted the applicant’s appeal and approved the development application subject to certain conditions. These conditions included requirements for landscaping, setbacks, and the inclusion of a pool.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant be granted leave to rely upon amended plans, that the appeal be upheld, and that the development application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A. This decision provides guidance to councils and developers on the proper consideration of planning policies and the importance of accurate factual findings in decision-making. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that development proposals are consistent with the surrounding area and do not cause undue harm to the environment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

(1) Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely upon the amended plans listed in Condition 1 at Annexure A.

(2) The appeal in respect of the property known as 285 Malabar Road, Maroubra NSW 2035 is upheld.

(3) Development Application DA/292/2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a dual occupancy development with pool, landscaping and associated works at 285 Malabar Road, Maroubra NSW 2035 is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

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.