Built Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council (No 2)

Case [2021] NSWLEC 1351


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Built Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1351
Hearing dates: 8 and 9 February 2021
Date of orders: 16 June 2021
Decision date: 16 June 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1)   The appeal is upheld.

(2)   Development application DA/283/2019 seeking consent for the consolidation of the two lots into one lot, demolition of all existing structures, excavation, and construction of a part 2/part 3 level building including basement car parking for 13 cars, warehousing and ancillary office space, with associated works at 84 to 86 Perry Street Matraville is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of development consent provided at Annexure ‘A’.

(3)   The exhibits are returned, with the exception of Exhibits A, 1 and 2.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – proposed warehouse – size and frequency of vehicles to attend warehouse facility – consideration of AS2890.2 concerning off street commercial vehicle facilities

Cases Cited:

Built Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1234

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Built Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Gallasso (Applicant)
M Staunton (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/349152
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In a judgment given on 6 May 2021, Built Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1234, I handed down my decision on the appeal by Built Developments Pty Ltd against the deemed refusal by the Randwick City Council of its development application DA/283/2019.

  2. That application sought consent for the consolidation of the two lots into one lot, demolition of all existing structures, excavation, and construction of a part 2/part 3 level building including basement car parking, warehousing and ancillary office space, with associated works at 84 to 86 Perry Street, Matraville.

  3. At [46] in my judgment of 6 May 2021, the Parties were directed to agree, and file with the Court, by no later than Friday 14 May 2021, settled conditions of consent, reflecting the conclusions in the Court’s judgment in this matter.

  4. The Parties have now agreed settled conditions of consent reflecting the conclusions in the Court’s judgment.

  5. As the Parties’ agreed conditions of consent have now been filed, the Court is able to make final orders.

Orders

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application DA/283/2019 seeking consent for the consolidation of the two lots into one lot, demolition of all existing structures, excavation, and construction of a part 2/part 3 level building including basement car parking for 13 cars, warehousing and ancillary office space, with associated works at 84 to 86 Perry Street Matraville is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of development consent provided at Annexure ‘A’.

  3. The exhibits are returned, with the exception of Exhibits A, 1 and 2.

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (414925, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Built Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1351
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1351
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Built Developments Pty Ltd brought an appeal against a decision of the Randwick City Council to refuse their development application for the consolidation of two lots into one, demolition of existing structures, and construction of a building for warehousing and office space. The application was filed with the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, and the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether the development application complied with the relevant planning instruments and whether the refusal of the application was unreasonable. The appellant argued that the refusal was unreasonable as the proposal met all the criteria of the Local Environment Plan and provided benefits to the local community. The respondent argued that the proposal was inconsistent with the objectives of the planning instruments and would have adverse effects on the character of the area.

The court found that the development application complied with the relevant planning instruments and that the refusal was unreasonable. The court held that the proposal met all the criteria of the Local Environment Plan and that the benefits to the local community outweighed the adverse effects on the character of the area. The court also held that the respondent had not demonstrated that the proposal was inconsistent with the objectives of the planning instruments. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the development application was granted consent subject to the conditions of development consent provided at Annexure ‘A’.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development application DA/283/2019 seeking consent for the consolidation of the two lots into one lot, demolition of all existing structures, excavation, and construction of a part 2/part 3 level building including basement car parking for 13 cars, warehousing and ancillary office space, with associated works at 84 to 86 Perry Street Matraville is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of development consent provided at Annexure ‘A’.

(3) The exhibits are returned, with the exception of Exhibits A, 1 and 2.

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.