Dignam v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1265


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dignam v Sutherland Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1265
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 June 2020
Date of orders: 25 June 2020
Decision date: 25 June 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
Decision:

See orders at [14] below

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – boarding house – amenity – character – parking – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015

Texts Cited:

Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Geoffrey Dignam (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Johnson (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Amy (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Swaab (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/270738
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application (DA) 18/1232 by Sutherland Shire Council (hereafter the Council), which as amended, now seeks the partial demolition existing structures, being external laundry and toilet block, front retaining wall and bin storage, tree removal and construction of a concrete hardstand for six parking spaces with landscaping on common property of SP8573, also known as 126 Elouera Road, Cronulla (hereafter the site).

  2. This Class 1 appeal is made under s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 11 June 2020. I presided over the conciliation conference. There were no objectors whom provided written submission at this conciliation. Although, it is recognised that several objectors spoke at a previous conciliation I presided over, and that was terminated. Their issues have been considered by the parties in the making of this agreement.

  4. Prior to this conciliation conference, and following expert discussion, the applicant sought to amend the DA’s supporting plans and provide relevant documentation to be relied upon in the granting of consent to the DA under appeal.

  5. Based on these amended plans, together with the DA’s supporting documents and agreed conditions of consent, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The decision of the parties is to uphold the appeal and grant consent to DA 18/1232 with conditions.

  6. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision, if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising its function under s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act after being satisfied, after being satisfied pursuant to s 4.15(1), to grant consent to DA 18/1232 with conditions, as described in Annexure A.

  7. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance to the Court in these proceedings, as consistency with the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP), and the Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 (SSDCP). The parties advise that the DA is made with the consent of the strata owners of the site.

  8. The site is located within lands described in the SSLEP. The proposed development is contained within common property of an existing two-storey residential flat building. The parties agree that the relevant provisions of the SSLEP are addressed to their satisfaction by the supporting documents and amended plans to the DA under appeal.

  9. Based on these amended plans and supporting documents to the DA, together with the conditions of consent, the contentions that relate to the controls as specified in the SSDCP are achieved to the satisfaction of the parties. The parties agree that the amended parking design and landscaping, as shown in the plans relied on, addresses any potential safety and amenity impacts raised in objection and as contentions.

  10. The proposed development was publicly notified in accordance with the SSDCP. During the initial notification period, no submissions were received by Council. The oral submissions of residents made at a previous conciliation were considered by the parties, prior to reaching the agreement. The amended plans have been considered in the context of the site and with reference to the concerns raised in public submissions.

  11. Based on the amended plans and supporting documents to the DA, the contentions as expressed in the Statement of Facts and Contentions are explained to the Court as resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.

  12. I am satisfied that there are no jurisdictional impediments to this agreement and that DA 18/1232 should be granted, as it satisfies the requirements of s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.

  13. 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.

  14. The Court orders that:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend its development application to:

  1. rely upon the following plans and documents:

Drawing No. and Revision/Issue

Title

Prepared by

Date

Architectural plans

Drawing No. A112, Issue 1

Levels Plan

Plannedspace

30 April 2020

Drawing No. 501,

Issue 4

Sections

Plannedspace

24 February 2020

Drawing No. 101, Issue 4

Site Plan – Existing / demolition

Plannedspace

22 November 2019

Drawing No. A113, Issue 3

Construction Management Plan

Plannedspace

22 November 2019

Landscaping Plans

Drawing No.000

Issue M

Coversheet

Site Image Landscape Architects

26 May 2020

Drawing No.101

Issue L

Landscape Plan

Site Image Landscape Architects

26 May 2020

Drawing No.501

Issue E

Landscaping Typical Details

Site Image Landscape Architects

6 August 2019

Engineering Plans

DA01

Revision 2

Civil Design Notes & Legend

Jones Nicholson Consulting Engineers

27 February 2020

DA02

Revision 6

Civil Design Site Stormwater Plan

Jones Nicholson Consulting Engineers

26 May 2020

DA03

Revision 3

Civil Design

Stormwater Details

Jones Nicholson Consulting Engineers

20 May 2020

Other supporting documents

N/A

Addendum to Statement of Environmental Effects

NSW Town Planning

10 June 2020

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $3,000.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. DA18/1232 for the partial demolition of the external laundry/toilet block, front retaining wall and, and bin storage concrete hardstand and the construction of a new retaining wall, landscaping works and parking for 6 vehicles on the common property of SP8573 at land known as 126 Elouera Road, Cronulla, is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure 'A'.

…………………………

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (650889, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Dignam v Sutherland Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1265
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1265
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the first respondent, Sutherland Shire Council, against a decision of the Land and Environment Court. The appellants, Dignam and others, sought to challenge the Council’s decision to grant development approval for a property in Sutherland. The dispute centred on the alleged procedural unfairness of the decision-making process and the validity of the approval granted by the Council.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council had followed proper procedures in granting the development approval, and whether the approval was lawful given the appellants' contentions of procedural unfairness. The appellants argued that the Council had failed to properly consider their submissions and had not adequately addressed their concerns regarding the approval. They contended that the Council's decision-making process was flawed due to procedural irregularities and that the approval should therefore be set aside.

The court examined the procedural fairness of the Council’s decision-making process and assessed whether there had been a failure to consider relevant submissions or to provide adequate reasons for the approval. The court found that while there were some procedural shortcomings, these did not amount to a failure of procedural fairness that would invalidate the Council's decision. The court held that the Council had sufficiently considered the appellants' submissions and had provided adequate reasons for granting the approval. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Council's decision to grant development approval.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [14] 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.