Gemaveld Pty Limited v Georges River Council

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gemaveld Pty Limited v Georges River Council [2022] NSWLEC 1182
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 February 2022, 14 March 2022 and 28 March 2022
Date of orders: 07 April 2022
Decision date: 07 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Horton C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application No DA 2020/0247, as amended, for demolition works, construction of a multi level dwelling house, swimming pool, front fence, landscaping and site works on Lot B DP 33563 known as 117 Stuart Street Blakehurst, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to conditions set out in Annexure ‘B’.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – dwelling house in R2 Low Density Residential zone – conciliation conference – agreement between parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 8.7

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 55

Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021, cl 1.8A

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2,

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience & Hazards) 2021, cll 2.4, 2.12, 2.13

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, cll 11.6, 11.7

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Gemaveld Pty Limited (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Berveling (Applicant)
R O’Gorman-Hughes (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Salim Rutherford Lawyers (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/293258
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This Class 1 Appeal is brought under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) following the refusal by the Georges River Local Planning Panel on behalf of Georges River Council (the Respondent) of Development Application DA2020/0247 seeking consent for demolition works, tree removal, and construction of a multi-level dwelling house, swimming pool, front fence, landscaping and site works at 117 Stuart Street, Blakehurst (the site).

  2. On 18 February 2022, the Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties in accordance with s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), at which I presided.

  3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached in-principle agreement on the matters in contention, subject to the resolution of certain issues which the parties’ advised me were capable of resolution. I adjourned the conference to allow the parties to continue to resolve those matters.

  4. On 14 and 28 March 2022, I further adjourned the conciliation conference to permit the parties to finalise the terms of the agreement that was filed with the Court on 29 March 2022, in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent to the development application.

  5. The parties ask me to approve their decision as set out in the s 34 agreement before the Court. In general terms, the agreement approves the development subject to amended plans that were prepared by the Applicant, and noting that the final detail of the works…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gemaveld Pty Limited v Georges River 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
[2022] NSWLEC 1182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gemaveld Pty Limited sought judicial review of a decision by the Georges River Council to refuse consent to a development application for a multi-level dwelling house and associated works. The dispute was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to refuse consent to the development application was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies.

The court examined the evidence presented, including expert evidence on the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding environment and the compliance of the development with local planning policies. The court found that the council's decision to refuse consent was not supported by sufficient evidence and was therefore unlawful. The court also found that the applicant had demonstrated that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and would comply with the relevant planning policies.

The court ordered that the appeal be upheld and that the development application be granted consent, subject to certain conditions. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that planning decisions are based on sufficient evidence and are in accordance with relevant planning policies and legislation. The court also noted that the proposed development had the potential to provide significant benefits to the applicant and the community, including the provision of additional housing and the potential for the applicant to generate revenue through the development.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application No DA 2020/0247, as amended, for demolition works, construction of a multi level dwelling house, swimming pool, front fence, landscaping and site works on Lot B DP 33563 known as 117 Stuart Street Blakehurst, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to conditions set out in Annexure ‘B’.

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.