GM Architects Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council - [2016] NSWLEC 1216

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: GM Architects Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1216
Hearing dates: 9, 10 and 11 March 2016
Date of orders: 03 June 2016
Decision date: 03 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Maston AC
Decision:
See Paragraph [103]

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - MULTI – STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT: whether development entitled to rely on the provisions for Key Sites under Strathfield Local Environmental Plan, 2012; suitability of vehicular access from Parramatta Road; STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – WORDS AND PHRASES meaning of “comprises a key site;” interpretation of maps; whether alternative request for variation of height and floor space ratio controls ought to be upheld.
Legislation Cited:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979;
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure), 2007;

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartments
Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012
Cases Cited:
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) [2009] 239 CLR 27 at [47]

Chain Bar Mill v Wild (1939) 56 RPC 446

Climate Change and Water [2012] NSWCCA 82 NSWLR 12 at [24]

Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1981] HCA 26 ; (1981) 147 CLR 297 at 305

Courallie Avenue Pty Limited v Strathfield Council (2015) NSWLEC 128 (30/4/2015) at [31] to [35]

Cranbrook School v Woollahra Council [2006] NSWCA 155; (2006) 146LGERA 313 [36]

Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council (2015) NSWLEC 90; (2015) NSWCA 248

General Clutch Corporation v Sbriggs Pty Ltd (1997) 38 IPR 359 at 373-376 (Lindgren J.);

Gill v Humberstone & Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 180 at 183

Green v Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water [2008] NSWLEC 48 at [8]

Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61 at 106

Lane Cove Council v Orca Partners (No. 2) (2015) NSWLEC 52 at [268], [269] and [273]

Modern Motels Pty Limited v Fairfield City Council (2013) NSWLEC 138 (12/8/2013)

NSW Crime Commission v Kelly [2003] NSWCA 145; 58 NSWLR 71 at [21]-[22]

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting
Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [69]-[71] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ

Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd (2016) NSWLEC 7

Roden v Bandora Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 191 at [42]-[45]

Tovir Investments Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2014] NSWCA 379 at [54]

Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Director-General, Department of Environment
Zraika v Walsh [2015] NSWSC 485
Texts Cited:
The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary;
The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd Edition);
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
G M Architects Proprietary Limited (Applicant)
Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:
Mr A Pickles SC (Applicant)
Ms K. Gerathy, Solicitor (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/161836 (formally 10709 of 2015)
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

These proceedings are an appeal pursuant to section 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (The EP&A Act) against the deemed refusal by Strathfield Municipal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read GM Architects Pty Ltd v Strathfield 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: [2016] NSWLEC 1216
Decision Date: 03 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of GM Architects Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council involved a dispute between GM Architects and the Strathfield Council over the refusal of the council to grant planning approval for a development proposed by GM Architects. 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 refusal to grant planning approval for the proposed development was valid. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the decision was based on a proper application of the relevant planning laws and whether it was supported by sufficient evidence. Additionally, the court considered whether the council had acted unreasonably or irrationally in making its decision.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, and considered the applicable planning legislation and guidelines. The court found that the council's decision was not based on a proper application of the planning laws, and that the decision was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court also found that the council had acted unreasonably in making its decision. Accordingly, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Strathfield Council dated 19 December 2018 be quashed, and that the matter be remitted to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court also ordered that GM Architects be entitled to its costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See Paragraph [103]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	GM Architects Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1216
Hearing dates:	9, 10 and 11 March 2016
Date of orders:	03 June 2016
Decision date:	03 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Maston AC
Decision:	See Paragraph [103]
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - MULTI – STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT: whether development entitled to rely on the provisions for Key Sites under Strathfield Local Environmental Plan, 2012; suitability of vehicular access from Parramatta Road; STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – WORDS AND PHRASES meaning of “comprises a key site;” interpretation of maps; whether alternative request for variation of height and floor space ratio controls ought to be upheld.
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979; Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure), 2007; State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartments Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012
Cases Cited:	Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) [2009] 239 CLR 27 at [47] Chain Bar Mill v Wild (1939) 56 RPC 446 Climate Change and Water [2012] NSWCCA 82 NSWLR 12 at [24] Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1981] HCA 26 ; (1981) 147 CLR 297 at 305 Courallie Avenue Pty Limited v Strathfield Council (2015) NSWLEC 128 (30/4/2015) at [31] to [35] Cranbrook School v Woollahra Council [2006] NSWCA 155; (2006) 146LGERA 313 [36] Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council (2015) NSWLEC 90; (2015) NSWCA 248 General Clutch Corporation v Sbriggs Pty Ltd (1997) 38 IPR 359 at 373-376 (Lindgren J.); Gill v Humberstone & Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 180 at 183 Green v Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water [2008] NSWLEC 48 at [8] Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61 at 106 Lane Cove Council v Orca Partners (No. 2) (2015) NSWLEC 52 at [268], [269] and [273] Modern Motels Pty Limited v Fairfield City Council (2013) NSWLEC 138 (12/8/2013) NSW Crime Commission v Kelly [2003] NSWCA 145; 58 NSWLR 71 at [21]-[22] Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [69]-[71] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd (2016) NSWLEC 7 Roden v Bandora Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 191 at [42]-[45] Tovir Investments Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2014] NSWCA 379 at [54] Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Director-General, Department of Environment Zraika v Walsh [2015] NSWSC 485
Texts Cited:	The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary; The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd Edition);
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	G M Architects Proprietary Limited (Applicant) Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Mr A Pickles SC (Applicant) Ms K. Gerathy, Solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Conomos Legal (Applicant) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/161836 (formally 10709 of 2015)
Publication restriction:	No