Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Commitment Pty Ltd v Georges River Council; (No 2) [2022] NSWLEC 94 Hearing dates: 2 August 2022 Date of orders: 3 August 2022 Decision date: 03 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pain J Decision: See [60]-[61]
Catchwords: APPEAL - separate questions of law in Class 1 proceedings
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 1.4, 2.25, 4.12, 4.64, Sch 3
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2014 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2017 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 (NSW), cl 45, 46
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW)
Georges River Development Control Plan 2021 (NSW), cl 1.7
Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021 (NSW), cl 1.8A
Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 25, 34, 35
Cases Cited: Botany Bay City Council v Remath Investments No. 6 Pty Limited (2000) 50 NSWLR 312; [2000] NSWCA 364
Commitment Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2022] NSWLEC 87
Friends of South West Rocks Inc v Machro Pty Ltd and Ors [2004] NSWLEC 721
Ironlaw Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council (No 2) (2013) 197 LGERA 238; [2013] NSWLEC 14
Texts Cited: (New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 22 October 2014)
New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 18 October 2017 at 2
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Commitment Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G Farland (Applicant)
L Sims (Respondent)
Bartier Perry Lawyers (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00044228
Judgment
-
The Applicant has commenced Class 1 proceedings which are an appeal against a deemed refusal of the Applicant’s Development Application (DA) for a property in Narwee. The Court has ordered the determination of separate questions in these Class 1 proceedings in Commitment Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2022] NSWLEC 87 (Commitment No 1).
-
The SOAF marked Ex B identifies all the necessary facts, the four questions originally posed (now three) and relevant planning instruments:
Statement of Agreed Facts
The parties
1. The applicant is the applicant of DA2021/0415 (Development Application).
2. The respondent is a council constituted under the Local Government Act 1993 for the local government area of Georges River.
The application
3. The subject proceedings are an appeal against the deemed refusal of the Development Application generally seeking consent for:
(a) demolition works of the existing structures,
(b) removal of one (1) tree, and
(c) construction of a sixty (60) place child care centre with basement parking for nine (9) cars, at Lot 47 in Deposited Plan 10112 and known as 36 Chamberlain Street, Narwee NSW 2209 (the Site).
4. The Site is located on the north-eastern side of Chamberlain Street.
5. Existing on the Site is a dwelling house and detached single garage.
The separate questions
6. On 13 July 2022, the Court granted orders pursuant to the Applicant’s Amended Notice of Motion filed 13 July…
Continue reading Commitment Pty Ltd v Georges River Council (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Commitment Pty Ltd v Georges River Council (No 2) [2022] NSWLEC 94
- Case
- [2022] NSWLEC 94
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues revolved around the proper application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Local Environmental Plan (LEP). Commitment Pty Ltd argued that the Council did not adequately consider certain factors, including the economic impact and community benefits of the proposed development. They also claimed that the Council's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the LEP provisions. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that their decision was lawful and in accordance with the relevant planning instruments.
The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the Council's compliance with the EP&A Act and the LEP. It found that the Council had indeed made errors in its interpretation of the LEP and had failed to consider relevant factors, such as the potential economic benefits and the character of the surrounding area. The court concluded that the Council's decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the application for development approval was remitted to the Council for reconsideration.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [60]-[61]
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.