Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Cherrybrook Victory Christian Church (No 2) v Hornsby Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 161
PARTIES: Applicant:
Cherrybrook Victory Christian ChurchRespondent:
Hornsby Shire CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 11102 of 2003
CORAM: Roseth SC
KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- SEPP 5 development
DATES OF HEARING: 11/04/2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 04/11/2005
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Applicant:
Respondent:
Mr G McKee, solicitor of McKees Legal Solutions
Mr P Jackson, solicitor of Pike Pike & Fenwick
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Roseth SC
11 April 2005
JUDGMENT11102 of 2003 Cherrybrook Victory Christian Church v Hornsby Shire Council
1 Senior Commissioner: I upheld the appeal on 21 May 2004. On 13 August 2004 Pain J heard an appeal under s56A of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 against my decision. On 5 November 2004, she set my orders aside and remitted the matter to me, on the basis that the application lacked certain details and that consequently I did not have the power to uphold the appeal.
2 In the intervening time the applicant has provided the required details and it is now common ground between the parties that those details are sufficient to determine the matter. I therefore make the following orders:
Orders
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development application to subdivide lot A DP 335625, known as 125 new Line Road, Cherrybrook, into two allotments, to demolish three existing buildings on the proposed rear allotment, and to erect a development for older people and people with disability consisting of eleven dwellings on the proposed rear allotment is determined by the granting of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
3. Exhibits I, II and I are retained on the Court’s files.
________________
Dr John Roseth
Senior Commissioner
- AGLC
- Cherrybrook Victory Christian Church v Hornsby Shire Council (No 2) [2005] NSWLEC 161
- Case
- [2005] NSWLEC 161
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key issue before the court was whether the applicant's development application adhered to the requirements set forth in Schedule 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), particularly in relation to the SEPP 5 development. The applicant had previously argued that the development was exempt from the need for consent due to its charitable nature, but the initial decision-maker had rejected this claim. The court needed to determine if the applicant's appeal was valid and if the proposed development complied with the relevant planning regulations.
The Senior Commissioner, Dr. John Roseth, found in favour of the applicant, upholding the appeal. He concluded that the development application, now supplemented with the necessary details, met the requirements for consent. The decision to grant consent came with specific conditions aimed at ensuring the development would align with the local environmental and planning regulations. The court also noted that the project's charitable purpose and benefits to the community were factors that supported the approval of the application.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was upheld, and the development application was granted consent subject to the conditions outlined in Annexure A. The exhibits presented during the hearing were retained on the court’s files for future reference.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.