Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: DBCF Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Municipal Council [2019] NSWLEC 1305 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference held on 27 June 2019 Date of orders: 02 July 2019 Decision date: 02 July 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: See Orders at [7] below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: DBCF Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Lane Cove Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/ 338871 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the terms of the Development Consent 217/16 (the consent), as modified, granted by Lane Cove Council (the Council) to modify a development consent for alterations and additions at 6 Mitchell Street, Greenwich (the site). The applicant seeks the deletion of condition 1A of the consent which deleted the pitched tiled roof proposed to replaced the existing roof.
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 27 June 2019. I have presided over the conciliation conference.
-
At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved deleting condition 1A of the consent and amending the proposal to include a pitched tiled roof with a shallower pitch and lower ridge height of maximum height RL 27.75 when compared to the form of the roof in the modification application.
-
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to determine the application.
-
There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be the terms of s 4.55 of the EPA Act to modify a consent. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act, because 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.
-
As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.
Orders
-
The Court orders:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans:
Drawing No.
Drawing Title
Revision
Date
Prepared by
106E
Proposed Roof Plan
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
107E
Proposed Elevation North
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
108E
Proposed Elevation South
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
109E
Proposed Elevation East
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
110F
Proposed Elevation West
F
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
111E
Proposed Section A‑A
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
Each party is to pay their own costs of the proceedings.
The appeal is upheld.
The Approval dated 8 June 2018 to Modify Development Consent No. DA217/2016, originally granted by the Respondent on 27 February 2017 and previously modified on 28 July 2017, is amended as follows:
Condition 1 is amended to read as follows:
-
The development is to be strictly in accordance with the following plans:
Drawing No.
Drawing Title
Issue No.
Date
Prepared by
104B
Proposed Floor Plan
B
18.05.17
DBCF Pty Limited
105B
Proposed First Floor Plan
B
18.05.17
DBCF Pty Limited
106E
Proposed Roof Plan
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
107E
Proposed Elevation North
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
108E
Proposed Elevation South
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
109E
Proposed Elevation East
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
110F
Proposed Elevation West
F
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
111E
Proposed Section A‑A
E
27.06.19
DBCF Pty Limited
113B
Site Plan
B
18.05.17
DBCF Pty Limited
114B
Environmental Site Management Plan & Waste Management Plan
B
18.05.17
DBCF Pty Limited
Condition 1A is deleted.
……………………….
Susan O’Neill
Commissioner of the Court
**********
- AGLC
- DBCF Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Municipal Council [2019] NSWLEC 1305
- Case
- [2019] NSWLEC 1305
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved whether the proposed change of use complied with the relevant planning instruments and whether the Council's refusal was justified. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the property was zoned in a way that allowed for the proposed use, and if the refusal was based on proper consideration of the planning legislation and policies. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the decision-making process adhered to statutory requirements and if there were any procedural flaws in the Council's decision.
The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, examining the zoning provisions of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, and the relevant statutory guidelines. The court concluded that the property was indeed zoned for commercial use and that the proposed change to residential use did not align with the zoning provisions. Furthermore, the court found that the Council's decision was based on a proper interpretation of the planning scheme and that there were no procedural flaws in the decision-making process. The court held that the Council was justified in denying the development application, as the proposed change of use was not in accordance with the planning instruments.
Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application and upheld the Council's decision. The court's decision was based on the premise that the proposed use of the property was not permissible under the existing zoning, and the Council had correctly applied the planning laws in denying the development application. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the Council's costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
See Orders at [7] below
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.