Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Commitment Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2021] NSWLEC 1428 Hearing dates: 26 and 27 April 2021 Date of orders: 27 July 2021 Decision date: 27 July 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed;
(2) Development Application DA2020/0050 seeking consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 60 place child care centre at 36 Chamberlain Street, Narwee, is determined by way of refusal;
(3) The exhibits are returned, with the exception of Exhibits C, D and 1.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – child care centre – whether proposed passing bay on access driveway is acceptable – whether streetscape of Proposed Development is compatible with local area – Proposed Development unable to satisfy considerations in Childcare Planning Guideline
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 4.15, s 8.7
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cll 49(1), 77
Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, cll 22, 23, 25, 26
Cases Cited: Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council (2005) 141 LGERA 80; [2005] NSWLEC 191
Texts Cited: Australian Standard 2890.1:2004
Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020
Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021
Hurstville Development Control Plan 1 2012
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (April 2021)
NSW Department of Planning, Childcare Planning Guideline 2017
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Commitment Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S Berveling (Applicant)
J Hewitt (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Bartier Perry (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/222588 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: Commitment Pty Ltd (the Applicant) has appealed the refusal by Georges River Council of its development application DA2020/0050, made with owners’ consent, seeking approval for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 60 place child care centre with basement car parking (the Proposed Development) at 36 Chamberlain Street, Narwee (the Subject Site).
-
The Applicant’s appeal comes to the Court pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act), and they are determined pursuant to the provisions of s 4.16 of the EP&A Act.
-
On 24 March 2021 the Applicant was granted leave to rely on amended plans on the basis of which the Proposed Development now includes:
demolition of existing structures on the Subject Site;
removal of vegetation on the Subject Site;
construction of a 60 place child care centre with:
52 places for children aged 3-6 years old;
eight (8) places for children aged 0-2 years old;
three (3) internal playrooms; and
three (3) outdoor play areas;
basement car parking for nine (9) vehicles, with access from Chamberlain Street and with an upper passing bay located in part on Council land between the vehicle cross over and the boundary of the Subject Site;
hours of operation between 7am and 6pm.
-
The Subject Site is…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Commitment Pty Ltd v Georges River 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWLEC 1428
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In determining these issues, the Court considered the statutory framework within which the Council was operating, including the relevant planning legislation and the statutory purpose of the development approval process. The Court found that the Council was not required to assess the merits of the proposal but was instead required to consider whether the proposal complied with the planning scheme and whether there were any other relevant statutory considerations. The Court further found that the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws in making its decision, and that the decision was not materially affected by any errors of law. As a result, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.
The Court did not make any orders in relation to the costs of the proceedings. The decision is a reminder of the limited role of the courts in reviewing the decisions of planning authorities, and the importance of ensuring that such decisions are made in accordance with the relevant statutory framework. The outcome of this case is likely to be of interest to developers and planning authorities alike, as it provides guidance on the scope of judicial review in the context of planning approvals.
Orders
Orders of the court
63.
The orders of the Court are:
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.