GLW Pty Ltd v Waverley Council

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Title: GLW Pty Ltd v Waverley Council
Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWLEC 1153
Hearing Date(s): 14 April 2011
Decision Date: 15 April 2011
Jurisdiction:   Class 1  
Before:

Pearson C

Decision:

Appeal dismissed

Catchwords:

Development modification - garage - impact on streetscape - consistency with planning controls - whether two car spaces required

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Civil Procedure Act 2005

Cases Cited:

Zhang v Canterbury City Council (2001) 115 LGERA 373

Texts Cited:
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:

GLW Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)

Representation
- Counsel:
- Solicitors:

Solicitors
B Hones (Applicant)
S Patterson (Respondent)

File number(s): 10109 of 2011
Publication Restriction:

Judgment

This determination was given extemporaneously and has been edited prior to publication

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal under s 96(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the refusal by Waverley Council of an application to modify development consent DA 203/2010 granted for the demolition of a dwelling house and the erection of a two-storey, four bedroom dwelling house with garage and pool for Lot 11 DP 386, 3 Campbell Street Waverley (the site).

  1. The appeal was lodged on 11 February 2011. The matter was set down for a conciliation conference to be conducted under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act), which commenced on 7 February 2011. Section 34AA modifies the application of the provisions of s34 of the Court Act for proceedings pending in Class 1 of the Court's jurisdiction relating to appeals, objections and applications under ss 97 and 97AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 . Section 97AA, which now provides for appeals by an applicant dissatisfied with a council's determination of a s 96 modification application, commenced on 28 February 2011. This being an appeal pursuant to s 96(6) of the Act lodged before the commencement of s 97AA, and there being no applicable savings or transitional provisions which would enable the matter to be dealt with under s 34AA of the Court Act, the matter has proceeded in accordance with the provisions of s 34 of the Court Act .

  1. The parties were unable to reach agreement and the conciliation conference was terminated. The parties consented under s 34(4)(b) of the Court Act to my disposing of the proceedings, and consented pursuant to s 34(12) of the Court Act to evidence from the site view forming part of the evidence in the proceedings.

  1. The appeal to the Court was lodged in the name of "3 Campbell Street Pty Ltd", which is the owner of the property. The application made to the respondent for modification of the development consent was made in the name of GLW Group Pty Ltd with the written consent of 3 Campbell Street Pty Ltd as owner. The applicant's representative advises that 3 Campbell Street Pty Ltd and GLW Group Pty Ltd have a common director. On…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read GLW Pty Ltd v Waverley 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
[2011] NSWLEC 1153
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of GLW Pty Ltd v Waverley Council was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around a decision made by the Council to revoke a development approval granted to the plaintiff, GLW Pty Ltd, for a commercial project in Bondi Junction. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Council’s decision, arguing that the revocation was unlawful and procedurally unfair.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Council had the lawful authority to revoke the development approval and whether the process followed by the Council was fair and in accordance with the relevant legislation. The plaintiff contended that the Council did not have the power to revoke the approval once it had been granted and that the revocation process was flawed, lacking proper notice and opportunity for the plaintiff to be heard. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that it had the statutory power to revoke the approval due to changes in circumstances and that the procedural fairness requirements were met.

In its reasoning, the court examined the statutory provisions governing development approvals and the circumstances under which a council could revoke such approvals. The court found that the Council did have the statutory power to revoke the approval under certain conditions, including changes in circumstances that could affect the approval’s validity. The court also determined that the procedural fairness requirements were satisfied as the plaintiff had received adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the Council's concerns. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review and upheld the Council's decision to revoke the development approval.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.