Flynn v Waverley Council

Case [2024] NSWLEC 1622


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Flynn v Waverley Council [2024] NSWLEC 1622
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 September 2024; 2 October 2024
Date of orders: 08 October 2024
Decision date: 08 October 2024
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon SC
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent is granted to development application DA-465/2022 for the construction of a hardstand parking space within Utility Lot 7 with a driveway to access the parking spaces over common property, sandstone retaining walls, excavation and fill to level the portion of Lot 7 proposed as a car space, a new angled vehicular crossover, and landscaping within Lot 7 at 19A Brown Street, Bronte (Lot 21 in DP 19554) subject to conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – development application – construction of a hardstand parking space – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 4.15

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 38

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, s 2.48

Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012, cl 6.2

Texts Cited:

Waverley Community Development Participation and Consultation Plan

Waverley Development Control Plan 2012

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ann Flynn (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Flynn (Self-represented) (Applicant)
J Ede (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/96420
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. These proceedings concern an appeal against the conditions imposed by Waverley Council on the development consent to DA-465/2022 (DA) for a hardstand parking space within Lot 7 at 19A Brown Street, Bronte (Lot 21 in DP 19554) (the site) and associated vehicular access.

  2. 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 first held on 23 September 2024. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. Following the conciliation conference, the applicant provided the Council with additional information from its traffic engineer, Oleg Sannikov of TEF Engineering, in the form of updated swept path diagrams and a statement concerning pedestrian and road users’ safety associated with entering and exiting the site.

  4. The Council is now satisfied that the proposed hardstand car space can be used safely and has agreed to the deletion of the conditions numbered deferred commencement conditions 1 and 2; conditions 2(a) and (b), 11, 12, 14 and 30; the amendment of conditions 1(f)-(h) and 29 and the addition of a new condition AD6. As such, the parties seek resolution of the proceedings in accordance with the terms outlined in their executed s34 written agreement.

  5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ signed agreement if the Court could have made that decision in the proper exercise of its functions.

  6. The preconditions relevant to the exercise of the Court’s power to make the proposed final orders are addressed in the joint jurisdictional submission annexed to the parties’ s34 written agreement.

  7. After a consideration of the parties’ submissions and the evidence I am satisfied that there is no jurisdictional impediment to the grant of development consent as proposed. In that regard I note the following:

  8. The DA was lodged with the Council on 28 October 2022 and was made with the consent of the owner of the site (Tab 1 of the Class 1 Application).

  9. The DA was notified for 14 days between 16 November and 2 December 2022 in accordance with the Waverley Community Development Participation and Consultation Plan. A total of five (5) unique submissions were received.

  10. The parties have considered the submissions received in relation to the DA including those taken onsite at the s34 and are satisfied that they have been addressed by the terms of the consent.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (TI SEPP)

  1. The DA was referred to Ausgrid pursuant to s 2.48 of the TI SEPP as it proposes development within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line.

  2. Ausgrid provided advice regarding underground cables in the vicinity of the development, which are included as an advisory note in the conditions of consent.

Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

Zoning

  1. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the LEP. The proposal is defined as ancillary to a residential flat building, which is permitted with consent in the R3 zone. The parties submit, and I accept that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the R3 zone.

Clause 6.2 Earthworks

  1. The DA seeks consent for minor earthworks associated with the development of the hardstand car space at the site. The parties have considered the relevant matters under cl 6.2(3) of the LEP and agreed that the proposal is satisfactory.

Waverley Development Control Plan 2012 (DCP)

  1. The DCP applies to the site. The parties submit and I accept that the proposed development is suitable having regard to the relevant provisions in the DCP.

Notation and orders

  1. As the parties’ decision is within power as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I now dispose of the proceedings in accordance with their decision.

  2. The Court notes that Waverley Council, as the relevant consent authority, has approved under s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, the applicant amending DA-465/2022 in accordance with the document listed below:

  1. Traffic Safety Statement prepared by TEF Consulting dated 26 September 2024.

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to development application DA-465/2022 for the construction of a hardstand parking space within Utility Lot 7 with a driveway to access the parking spaces over common property, sandstone retaining walls, excavation and fill to level the portion of Lot 7 proposed as a car space, a new angled vehicular crossover, and landscaping within Lot 7 at 19A Brown Street, Bronte (Lot 21 in DP 19554) subject to conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

…………………..

S Dixon

Senior Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (256563, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Flynn v Waverley Council [2024] NSWLEC 1622
Case
[2024] NSWLEC 1622
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Flynn, the applicant, against Waverley Council, the respondent. The subject of the appeal was a refusal to grant development consent for the construction of a hardstand parking space within Utility Lot 7, including a driveway over common property, sandstone retaining walls, excavation and fill to level the proposed car space, a new angled vehicular crossover, and landscaping within Lot 7 at 19A Brown Street, Bronte. The appeal was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the refusal of development consent by the respondent was valid. The applicant argued that the refusal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the relevant planning and development laws. The respondent contended that the refusal was justified on the grounds that the proposal did not comply with the local environmental plan and would have adverse impacts on the character of the area. The court had to determine whether the respondent’s decision was lawful and whether the applicant’s proposal met the necessary criteria for development consent.

The court found that the respondent’s refusal of development consent was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. The court noted that the proposal complied with the relevant planning instruments and that the applicant had taken steps to mitigate any potential adverse impacts. The court further found that the respondent had failed to provide adequate reasons for the refusal and that the refusal was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court upheld the appeal and granted development consent to the applicant’s proposal, subject to certain conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent is granted to development application DA-465/2022 for the construction of a hardstand parking space within Utility Lot 7 with a driveway to access the parking spaces over common property, sandstone retaining walls, excavation and fill to level the portion of Lot 7 proposed as a car space, a new angled vehicular crossover, and landscaping within Lot 7 at 19A Brown Street, Bronte (Lot 21 in DP 19554) subject to conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

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.