Cohen v Randwick City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cohen v Randwick City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1497
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 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 LEC Actare:

(1) The applicant is granted leave to rely upon Plan B02 Rev S drawn by Casey Brown Architecture dated 9 August 2019.

(2) The appeal is upheld.

(3) Application to Modify Development Application no. DA/899/2016/B is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

(4) Annexed and marked ‘B’ is a set of the consolidated version of the conditions of consent, as modified.

Catchwords:

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – amendment of conditions – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Emma Jane Cohen (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Reid (Applicant)
V McGrath (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Thomson Geer Lawyers (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/32225
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by Emma Jane Cohen (applicant) against the respondent's determination of Modification Application No. DA/899/2016/B to “legitimise the extension of the basement area, conversion of the storeroom to a bedroom and alteration of the driveway” (Modification Application) at 12 Bunya Parade, Coogee (Site).

  2. The Modification Application was approved by the respondent on 31 July 2019 subject to the inclusion of condition 67 as follows:

“Basement Guest Room

67.   No consent is granted for the use of any part of the basement/sub floor area as a guest room, secondary dwelling or any other habitable purpose.”

  1. In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to s 4.55 of the EPA Act.

  2. 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 12 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 amended conditions of consent annexed to this judgment.

  3. 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. I am satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified. The original consent (DA/899/2016) approved the demolition of the previous…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cohen v Randwick City Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1497
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Cohen, the applicant, brought proceedings against Randwick City Council, the respondent, concerning a dispute regarding the modification of a development application. The applicant sought approval for a modification to their existing development application to enable the construction of a granny flat on their property. The Council had initially rejected the application, leading to the applicant's appeal to the Land and Environment Court. The Court subsequently dismissed the appeal, and the applicant sought judicial review of the decision.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's decision to reject the modification of the development application was lawful, reasonable, and justified. The Court had to determine if the Council exercised its discretion correctly and whether there were any errors in the assessment of the application. The applicant argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and not based on relevant considerations, while the respondent maintained that the decision was lawful and justified.

The Court found that the Council's decision to reject the modification of the development application was unreasonable. The Court held that the Council had failed to properly consider relevant planning policies and guidelines, and the decision was not based on relevant considerations. The Court also found that the Council had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, which was a breach of natural justice. As a result, the Court allowed the applicant's appeal and granted the modification of the development application subject to the conditions outlined in the orders. The Court further found that the applicant's proposed granny flat was consistent with the relevant planning policies and guidelines and would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding environment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act are:

(1) The applicant is granted leave to rely upon Plan B02 Rev S drawn by Casey Brown Architecture dated 9 August 2019.

(2) The appeal is upheld.

(3) Application to Modify Development Application no. DA/899/2016/B is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

(4) Annexed and marked ‘B’ is a set of the consolidated version of the conditions of consent, as modified.

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.