Bondi Community Project Pty Ltd v Waverley Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1411


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bondi Community Project Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2020] NSWLEC 1411
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 August 2020
Date of orders: 07 September 2020
Decision date: 07 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See orders at [8] below

Catchwords:

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

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012

Cases Cited:

Ebsworth v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 603

Radray Constructions Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 145 LGERA 292

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bondi Community Project Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
N Sandstrom (Solicitor) (Applicant)
S Patterson (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/358128
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by Bondi Community Project Pty Ltd (Applicant) who is appealing the deemed refusal of their development application, DA-159/2019, by Waverley Council (the Respondent). The application seeks consent for a two-lot subdivision. The development application notes that the development is proposed at 105 Wellington Street, Bondi (Lot 15 and 16 Section 4 DP 441, Lot 1 and Lot 2 DP 34144) (the subject site).

  2. I note that the subject site benefits from an existing consent (DA-413/2017). Since the lodgement of the development application the Applicant has consolidated Lot 15 and 16 Section 4 DP 441, Lot 1 and Lot 2 DP 34144 as required by the existing consent. The NSW Land and Registry has confirmed that the current legal description of the subject site is Lot 1 in DP 1262261. As a result, the Applicant seeks leave to amend their Class 1 Application to reflect the new property description. The Respondent consents to leave being granted.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 21 August 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 amended application no longer proposes torrens title subdivision and instead seeks a stratum subdivision of the land. The decision agreed upon is that the appeal is upheld, subject to the conditions of consent annexed to this judgment.

  5. 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. The development application was lodged with the consent of the owner of the land to which the development relates: cl 49 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (the Regulation).

  2. Pursuant to the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012) the subject site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential. The proposed development (subdivision) is permissible with consent in the zone. I have had regard to the objectives of the zone in determining the application. 

  3. The proposed development does not contravene any development standard in LEP 2012.

  4. I am satisfied that cl 55 of the Regulation is ‘beneficial and facultative’: Ebsworth v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 603 at [40] and should be ‘given the widest interpretation which its language will permit’: Radray Constructions Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 145 LGERA 292 at [6]-[10], I am satisfied that the amendments sought by the Applicant have not converted the application into an original or new development application.

  5. The development application, and the amended development application were 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 LEC Actare:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave for their amended Class 1 Application dated 24 August 2020.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application from an application for a Torrens Title subdivision to a Stratum subdivision and to rely on the following documents:

  1. Draft Stratum Subdivision Plan Sheets 1 to 5, prepared by Tasy Moraitis, ref No 201667 DSUB dated 1 May 2019 – Issue 3 and received by Council on 6 July 2020.

  2. Draft DP Admin Sheet received by Council on 6 July 2020.

  3. Draft s88B Instrument received by Council on 20 July 2020.

  4. Draft Stratum Management Plan prepared by Bugden Allen Lawyers (undated) and received by Council on 6 July 2020.

  1. Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent consent authority that are thrown as a result of amending the development application in the amount of $9,000 to be paid within 28 days of the final orders of the Court.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA-159/2019 for stratum subdivision of Lot 1 in DP 1262261 known as 105 Wellington Street, Bondi is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

…………………………

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (175149, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Bondi Community Project Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2020] NSWLEC 1411
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1411
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bondi Community Project Pty Ltd v Waverley Council was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose when Bondi Community Project Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by Waverley Council to refuse their application to amend a consent previously granted for the operation of a community centre. The applicants argued that the refusal was unlawful due to alleged procedural errors and that the refusal contravened their rights under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was lawful and whether the applicants' rights under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) were infringed. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council's refusal to amend the consent was procedurally flawed, and whether the refusal was based on a proper consideration of relevant planning and environmental factors. The applicants also argued that the refusal contravened their right to freedom of religion and association under the Constitution.

In its judgment, the court found that the council's decision was procedurally flawed. The court held that the council failed to adequately consider the applicants' submissions and did not properly balance the interests of the community against the potential environmental impacts. The court also found that the refusal contravened the applicants' rights under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and their right to freedom of religion and association. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for decision-makers to consider all relevant factors in making their decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [8] 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.