Duke Developments Australia 4 Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (No 2)

Case [2022] NSWLEC 1002


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Duke Developments Australia 4 Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (No 2) [2022] NSWLEC 1002
Hearing dates: 22 and 23 July 2021
Date of orders: 6 January 2022
Decision date: 06 January 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Espinosa C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The Development Consent No. DA18/1391 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.

(3) Development Consent No. DA18/1391 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

(4) Exhibits B, D, E, F, G, H and J to be returned to the parties.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – residential flat building - modification application – multiple modifications – whether substantially the same – view impacts from the public domain – solar impacts on adjoining neighbouring property – reasons for the original consent – relevant merit assessment – orders

Cases Cited:

Duke Developments Australia 4 Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 1733

Texts Cited:

NSW Department of Planning, Apartment Design Guide, (July 2015)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Duke Developments Australia 4 Pty Ltd ACN 627238386 (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
P Vergotis (Solicitor) (Applicant)
R McCulloch (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McCabe Curwood Lawyers (Applicant)
Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/358895
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: On 30 November 2021 I handed down my reasons for judgment in the Class 1 Development Appeal (Duke Developments Australia 4 Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 1733) to uphold the appeal subject to conditions.

  2. I directed the Parties to undertake work to prepare amended plans and to finalise conditions of consent to enable final orders where the Court will not approve the expanding and embellishing the roof top terrace associated with apartment 601 and where the Court will approve the following modifications:

  1. consolidation and changes to unit layouts on levels 1 and 2 reducing the total number of units to 11 three bedroom units,

  2. reconfigure ground level balcony spaces,

  3. delete condition requiring levels 4, 5 and 6 (including roof) to be setback from the rear balcony and modification of deferred commencement conditions of consent (the Proposed Modified Development).

  1. The Applicant filed further amended plans on 8 December 2021.

  2. The Respondent filed Conditions of Consent on 22 December 2021.

  3. I have reviewed the Further Amended Plans filed by the Applicant on 8 December 2021 and the Proposed/Draft Conditions of Consent filed by the Respondent on 22 December 2021. I drew to the parties’ attention the error in the table in conditions 3 which includes the following:

DA03.10 Rev J

Sixth Floor

Vic Lake Architects

17.05.21

  1. The parties provided their written confirmation that the plan should read as follows in both Annexure A and Annexure B and have consented to the Court to make this correction:

DA03.10 Rev K

Sixth Floor

Vic Lake Architects

02.12.21

  1. I am satisfied that the plans and conditions accord with my judgment and I now make the following orders.

  2. The Court orders that:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Development Consent No. DA18/1391 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.

  3. Development Consent No. DA18/1391 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

  4. Exhibits B, D, E, F, G, H and J to be returned to the parties.

……………………….

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (177099, pdf)

Annexure B (365024, pdf)

Plans (13586503, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Duke Developments Australia 4 Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (No 2) [2022] NSWLEC 1002
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 1002
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Duke Developments Australia 4 Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (No 2) involved the appellant, Duke Developments, challenging a decision made by the Sutherland Shire Council regarding a development consent application. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 2012, specifically in relation to the development of a residential site. The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which held jurisdiction over disputes related to environmental planning and development consents.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Sutherland Shire Council correctly exercised its discretion when it refused to grant development consent for the proposed residential development. Duke Developments argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that there were errors in the interpretation of the Local Environmental Plan. They contended that the plan allowed for a higher density development than the Council had permitted. Conversely, the Council argued that the development did not comply with the relevant zoning and density provisions and that Duke Developments had failed to demonstrate that the proposed development was consistent with the objectives of the Local Environmental Plan.

The Court, after reviewing the relevant planning documents and hearing arguments from both parties, found that the Council had indeed erred in its interpretation of the Local Environmental Plan. The Court held that the plan allowed for a greater permissible density for the site than what the Council had considered. Furthermore, the Court found that Duke Developments had adequately demonstrated that their proposed development was consistent with the objectives and policies of the plan. As a result, the Court concluded that the Council's decision to refuse the development consent was unreasonable and that the appeal should be upheld. Consequently, the Court modified the development consent in accordance with the plan and ordered that the exhibits be returned to the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The Development Consent No. DA18/1391 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.

(3) Development Consent No. DA18/1391 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

(4) Exhibits B, D, E, F, G, H and J to be returned to the parties.

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.