Chan v Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1294


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chan v Council of the City of Sydney [2020] NSWLEC 1294
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 July 2020
Date of orders: 13 July 2020
Decision date: 13 July 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure ‘A’.

(2) Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away in the amount of $5,500.00 within 28 days of the making of these orders.

(3) The appeal is upheld.

(4) Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2018/1455 for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new 8 storey hotel containing 36 guest rooms on the property known as 129-131 Bayswater Road, Rushcutters Bay and being all that land comprised in Lot 129 DP 1111169 including demolition works on 1 Bayswater Lane, Darlinghurst being all that land comprised in Lot 100 of DP 714963 subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure ‘B’.

Catchwords:

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

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Sharon Chan (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Whealy (Solicitor) (Applicant)
M Flick (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/370871
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: Sharon Chan (the Applicant) has appealed the refusal by the Council of the City of Sydney (the Respondent) of her development application D/2018/1455 for demolition of existing structures and construction of an eight-storey hotel (the Proposed Development) at 129 to 131 Bayswater Road, Rushcutters Bay (the Subject Site).

  2. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and falls within Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction.

  3. These proceedings are determined pursuant to the provisions of s 4.16 of the EP&A Act.

  4. The Court had arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the Parties, which was held on 2 July 2020, and I had presided over that conciliation conference.

  5. At the conciliation conference, the Parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the Parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting consent to the Applicant’s development application, subject to conditions.

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

  7. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The Parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be:

  1. the Development Application was made with owner’s consent, including the consent of RailCorp (which became the Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (TAHE) on 1 July 2020), which is required in respect of certain elements of the demolition works proposed by the Applicant;

  2. the Proposed Development, characterised as an eight-storey hotel with 36 rooms, is permissible with consent on the Subject Site, which is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the provisions of cl 2.3 of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP);

  3. the Proposed Development complies with the height of buildings development standard applicable to the Subject Site under the provisions of cl 4.3 of SLEP;

  4. the Proposed Development complies with the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard applicable to the Subject Site under the provisions of cl 4.4 of SLEP; 

  5. the Proposed Development is compliant with the provisions of cl 6.21 of SLEP in relation to design excellence, and the Respondent has confirmed that it has considered the matters identified within cl 6.21(4) of SLEP, and the proposed development exhibits design excellence.

  1. The Parties have explained, and I accept, that the above jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied.

  2. The Respondent also advised that it was satisfied that the matters raised by objectors in response to its notification of the Applicants’ Proposed Development, had been satisfactorily resolved by the Applicants’ amended plans.

  3. Having considered the advice of the Parties, provided above at [7] and [8], I agree that the jurisdictional prerequisites on which I must be satisfied before I can exercise the power under s 4.16 of the EP&A Act have been so satisfied.

  4. I am further 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 LEC Act.

  5. 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.

  6. The Court orders that:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure ‘A’.

  2. Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away in the amount of $5,500.00 within 28 days of the making of these orders.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2018/1455 for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new 8 storey hotel containing 36 guest rooms on the property known as 129-131 Bayswater Road, Rushcutters Bay and being all that land comprised in Lot 129 DP 1111169 including demolition works on 1 Bayswater Lane, Darlinghurst being all that land comprised in Lot 100 of DP 714963 subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure ‘B’.

……………………………..

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (8024614, pdf)

Annexure B (384273, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Chan v Council of the City of Sydney [2020] NSWLEC 1294
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Chan v Council of the City of Sydney was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The Applicant, Chan, sought to amend plans for a proposed hotel development in Rushcutters Bay, Sydney. The dispute centred on the conditions and approval of the development application, specifically concerning the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a new hotel. The Respondent, the Council of the City of Sydney, opposed the amended plans and sought to challenge the approval of the development application.

The court had to determine whether the Applicant was entitled to rely on the amended plans for the proposed hotel development. It also had to consider whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the plans and whether the amended plans met the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Additionally, the court needed to assess the Respondent's argument that the development application should be refused due to non-compliance with relevant planning controls and the impact on neighbouring properties.

The court found that the Applicant was entitled to rely on the amended plans. The court held that the Applicant had demonstrated that the amended plans addressed the issues raised by the Respondent and met the requirements of the planning legislation. The court also found that the development would not have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring properties and that the benefits of the proposed development outweighed any potential harm. Accordingly, the court granted the Applicant leave to rely on the amended plans and upheld the appeal. The court ordered that development consent be granted to the Applicant for the proposed hotel development, subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure ‘B’.

The court also ordered that the Applicant pay the Respondent's costs thrown away in the amount of $5,500.00 within 28 days of the making of these orders. The court found that the Respondent had incurred costs in responding to the appeal and that the Applicant should bear those costs. This order reflects the court's finding that the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious and that the Applicant had a reasonable case for the amendment of the plans.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure ‘A’.

(2) Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away in the amount of $5,500.00 within 28 days of the making of these orders.

(3) The appeal is upheld.

(4) Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2018/1455 for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new 8 storey hotel containing 36 guest rooms on the property known as 129-131 Bayswater Road, Rushcutters Bay and being all that land comprised in Lot 129 DP 1111169 including demolition works on 1 Bayswater Lane, Darlinghurst being all that land comprised in Lot 100 of DP 714963 subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure ‘B’.

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.