F S Architects Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council

Case [2005] NSWLEC 21


NEW SOUTH WALES LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

CITATION:     F S Architects Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council [2005]  NSWLEC 21

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
F S Architects Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Liverpool City Council

CASE NUMBER:     11177 of       2004

CATCH WORDS:     Development Application

LEGISLATION CITED:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Liverpool Local Environmental Plan  - (LEP)
Development Control Plan - (DCP)

CORAM:       Hussey C

DATES OF HEARING:       20/01/2005 (Orders)

EX TEMPORE DATE:        20/01/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

APPLICANT
Mr M Pearce
of Bowen & Gerathy

RESPONDENT
Mr A Seton
of Marsdens

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

20 January 2005

11177 of 2004               F S Architects Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council

JUDGMENT

  1. I am now in a position now to finalise this matter.  I gave my preliminary finding originally that I considered the consent orders could be made, but the outstanding matters of the unresolved conditions that go with those consent orders, needed finalisation.  Those matters included those raised by the residents relating to on-street parking, traffic control, and also noise attenuation/control concerns arising from noise from the children at the child care centre.  Also there was the further outstanding matter of s 94 contributions.

  1. These matters have been further reviewed and the first two matters on parking, noise attenuation, have been addressed by updated conditions in the consent orders, and I understand now the s 94 contribution is agreed by the parties.

  1. On this basis then I am satisfied that these updated consent orders, (exhibit 8), should be made.  The only minor change I make is Order 3, regarding return of exhibits.

  1. So the consent orders are:

1.     The appeal is upheld.

2.     The development application numbered DA 2542/04, lodged with the respondent for the erection and use of a child care centre, at lot 2256 in DP 1004302, No. 1, Watts Place, West Hoxton, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A to these orders. 

3.     The exhibits may be returned except for exhibits A, B, 7 and 8.

_______________________
R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
ljr

Details
AGLC
F S Architects Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council [2005] NSWLEC 21
Case
[2005] NSWLEC 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of F S Architects Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council involved the applicant, F S Architects Pty Limited, appealing against the decision of the respondent, Liverpool City Council, to refuse their development application for the erection and use of a child care centre. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought to overturn the council's decision and have their development application approved subject to certain conditions. The council, on the other hand, maintained its position that the development application should be refused due to concerns such as on-street parking, traffic control, and noise attenuation.

The legal issues that the court had to decide involved the interpretation and application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan, and the Development Control Plan. The court had to determine whether the development application complied with the relevant planning laws and if the concerns raised by the residents and the council could be addressed through the imposition of specific conditions. Additionally, the court needed to examine the issue of s 94 contributions and resolve it between the parties.

The court found that the development application could be approved subject to updated conditions that addressed the concerns raised by the residents and the council. The court was satisfied that the concerns regarding on-street parking, traffic control, and noise attenuation had been adequately addressed in the updated conditions. Furthermore, the court understood that the issue of s 94 contributions had been resolved between the parties. As a result, the court made the consent orders that the appeal was upheld, and the development application was approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A to the orders. The exhibits were to be returned except for exhibits A, B, 7, and 8.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.