Freedom Development Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

Link copied
Case Copied 3 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Freedom Development Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2019] NSWLEC 1504
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 18 October 2019
Date of orders: 25 October 2019
Decision date: 25 October 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development consent 18/0531, granted on 3 April 2019 for two boarding houses containing a total of 65 rooms and basement parking, is modified to amend the monetary contribution requirement in Part 2 condition 4 of the conditions of consent to $682,215, subject to the consolidated conditions of consent at Annexure A.

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Cases Cited: Freedom Development Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2019] NSWLEC 1145
Texts Cited: Sutherland Shire Council Section 7.11 Development Contribution Plan 2016
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Freedom Development Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
V Conomos (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Amy (Solicitor) (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/139024
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is a modification application made to the Land and Environment Court pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) to modify Development Consent No. 18/0531 granted on 3 April 2019 (Freedom Development Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2019] NSWLEC 1145) for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of two boarding houses comprising 65 rooms and a shared basement that straddles the shared boundary (the approved development) at 391 and 393 Kingsway, Caringbah (the site).

  2. The proposal is to amend Condition 4 in Part 2 of the conditions of consent to reduce the monetary contribution required pursuant to s 7.11 of the EPA Act and the Sutherland Shire Council Section 7.11 Development Contribution Plan 2016 (s 7.11 Plan) from a total monetary contribution of $1,260,000 to $682,215 to be paid to Sutherland Shire Council towards the cost of regional and public domain works, with such payment to be made prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the applicant and the respondent, Sutherland Shire Council (the Council), which has been held on 18 October 2019 2019. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 4.55(8) of the EPA Act to modify the development…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Freedom Development Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1504
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Freedom Development Group Pty Ltd sought to appeal the decision of the Sutherland Shire Council, regarding the conditions attached to the approval of a development application. The appeal was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central dispute was whether the monetary contribution requested by the Council was appropriate and lawful. The developer argued that the amount was excessive and not justified by the benefits to the community that would be derived from the development.

The court was required to determine whether the amount specified by the Council was a lawful and reasonable condition attached to the approval of the development. The developer contended that the Council had not demonstrated that the amount was necessary and that it had not followed proper processes in determining the contribution. The developer also argued that the amount was disproportionate to the benefits that would be provided by the development.

The court found that the Council had not demonstrated that the amount was necessary and that it had not followed proper processes in determining the contribution. The court held that the amount was excessive and that it was not justified by the benefits to the community. The court noted that the Council had not considered the impact of the contribution on the developer's ability to complete the development, and had not taken into account the costs that would be incurred by the developer in complying with the condition. The court also found that the Council had not provided sufficient evidence to support the amount requested. The court therefore modified the monetary contribution to $682,215, subject to the consolidated conditions of consent at Annexure A.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent 18/0531, granted on 3 April 2019 for two boarding houses containing a total of 65 rooms and basement parking, is modified to amend the monetary contribution requirement in Part 2 condition 4 of the conditions of consent to $682,215, subject to the consolidated conditions of consent at 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.