German School v Warringah Shire Council

Case [2005] NSWLEC 659



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION:

German School v Warringah Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 659

PARTIES:

Applicant:
German School Johannes Gutenberg Ltd

Respondent:
Warringah Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10763 of 2005

CORAM:

Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- bushfire safety authority

DATES OF HEARING: 18/11/2005
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

11/18/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

Applicant:
Mr Garry Green and Ms J Reid, solicitors of Pike Pike & Fenwick

Respondent:
Mr M Henry, barrister instructed by Ms V Ingram, council solicitor


JUDGMENT:

- 2 -

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Roseth SC

      18 November 2005

      10763 of 2005 German School Johannes Gutenberg Ltd v Warringah Shire Council

      JUDGMENT

      The consequence of the Court’s decision in this appeal is the grant of development consent subject to detailed conditions. These conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but are available for inspection at the Council. In addition, a copy the Court’s Orders and the conditions may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders and conditions are available on the Court’s web site at

1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the deemed refusal by Warringah Shire Council (the council) of a development application to erect a school on lot 321 DP 752017, known as 33 Myoora Road, Terrey Hills.

2 At the time of the appeal’s lodgement the only issue between the parties was that the Rural Fire Service (RFS) refused to grant a Bushfire Safety Authority. The applicant revised the proposal and the RFS has now granted a Bushfire Safety Authority. No issue therefore remains between the parties and they seek consent orders from the Court.

3 When the proposal was advertised, the council received four objections from nearby residents. The residents did not attend the Court hearing. Their main concerns were that the proposal is too big, contains too little landscaped area and will make traffic conditions worse. The council and the applicant negotiated on these and other issues resulting in amendments that go some of the way to meeting the objectors’ concerns. The council’s planning report, prepared by Mr R Piggott and dated 6 September 2005, concludes in relation to the revised proposal that the concerns do not justify the refusal of the application. Mr Piggott’s assessment states that the proposal complies with building form controls, the landscaping proposal is commensurate with the building’s height and bulk, and the additional traffic is within the environmental capacity of Myoora Road. I am satisfied that Mr Piggott has given thorough consideration to the objections. I therefore agree to the granting of consent orders.


      Orders

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development application to erect a school on lot 321 DP 752017, known as 33 Myoora Road, Terrey Hills is determined by the granting of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

3. Exhibits 1 and 2 are returned; the remaining exhibits are retained.

4. No order as to costs.

      ______________________
      Dr John Roseth
      Senior Commissioner
Details
AGLC
German School v Warringah Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 659
Case
[2005] NSWLEC 659
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, German School Johannes Gutenberg Ltd, appealed against the deemed refusal by Warringah Shire Council to approve a development application for the erection of a school on a specified lot at Terrey Hills. The primary issue that led to the initial refusal was the Rural Fire Service's denial of a Bushfire Safety Authority. However, after revisions to the proposal, the Rural Fire Service granted the required authority, leaving no remaining disputes between the parties. The applicant and the council sought consent orders from the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales to formalise the approval of the revised proposal.

The court had to determine whether the revised proposal should be approved despite objections from nearby residents who were concerned about the scale of the project, the amount of landscaping, and the potential traffic impact. The council's planning report, prepared by Mr R Piggott, concluded that the objections did not justify refusal of the application, as the proposal complied with building form controls, the landscaping was adequate, and the additional traffic was manageable. The court needed to assess if Mr Piggott's evaluation was thorough and reasonable, and if the council's concerns were adequately addressed by the applicant's revisions.

After reviewing the evidence and considering the objections and the council's planning report, the court was satisfied that Mr Piggott had given a comprehensive evaluation to the objections and that the council's concerns were reasonably met by the revisions to the proposal. Consequently, the court upheld the appeal and granted development consent subject to certain conditions. The orders included the approval of the development application, the return of certain exhibits, and the retention of others. The court made no order regarding costs.

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.