Commitment Pty Ltd v Georges River Council (No 2)

Case [2022] NSWLEC 94


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

Loder v Narrabri Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 109

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:
G Farland (Applicant)
L Sims (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Bartier Perry Lawyers (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00044228

Judgment

  1. 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).

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
Commitment Pty Ltd v Georges River Council (No 2) [2022] NSWLEC 94
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 94
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Commitment Pty Ltd contested Georges River Council's decision to deny their application for a development approval for a mixed-use project. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary concern was whether the Council's decision was legally valid and if there were any procedural errors in the assessment process. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the refusal of the development approval was unreasonable and if the Council had acted in an unreasonable manner.

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.