Henroth Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council (No 2)

Case [2024] NSWLEC 1740

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Henroth Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 1740
Hearing dates: 17-21 June 2024
Date of orders: 18 November 2024
Decision date: 18 November 2024
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon SC
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent is granted to development application no. DA 91/2023 for a concept development application encompassing Stages 1 and 2 including public roads, public domain layout, building envelopes (retail, residential and childcare centre) and parking, and a detailed development application for Stage 1 including redevelopment of the southern part of the existing shopping centre, construction of basement parking, childcare centre, mixed use residential development, demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new road, associated landscaping and civil works at 353-355 Waterloo Road and 87 Norfolk Road, Greenacre, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – development application – redevelopment of existing shopping centre – concept plan and Stage 1 DA – agreed conditions

Cases Cited:

Henroth Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2024] NSWLEC 1700

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Henroth Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Galasso SC (Applicant)
G Farland / T Poisel (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/128962
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. On 29 October 2024, I handed down my reasons for judgment in the Class 1 appeal, Henroth Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2024] NSWLEC 1700. At [277], I directed the parties to confer and amend the conditions of consent in accordance with my reasons for judgment and to provide a copy to the Court.

  2. As I am satisfied having reviewed the agreed conditions of consent provided on 14 November 2024 that they are acceptable, I now make the following orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to development application no. DA 91/2023 for a concept development application encompassing Stages 1 and 2 including public roads, public domain layout, building envelopes (retail, residential and childcare centre) and parking, and a detailed development application for Stage 1 including redevelopment of the southern part of the existing shopping centre, construction of basement parking, childcare centre, mixed use residential development, demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new road, associated landscaping and civil works at 353-355 Waterloo Road and 87 Norfolk Road, Greenacre, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

……………….

S Dixon

Senior Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (1087352, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Henroth Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 1740
Case
[2024] NSWLEC 1740
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Henroth Pty Ltd sought approval from the Canterbury-Bankstown Council for a redevelopment project at a site in Greenacre. The council refused to grant development consent, leading Henroth to appeal the decision to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the proposed development met the criteria for development consent under the relevant planning legislation and whether the council's decision was legally sound. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council's refusal of consent was unreasonable and whether the proposed development aligned with the objectives and policies of the applicable planning instruments.

In examining the matter, the court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court found that the council's refusal was not supported by the evidence and was unreasonable in certain respects. The proposed development was deemed to be in accordance with the objectives and policies of the planning framework, and it was concluded that the benefits of the development outweighed any potential adverse impacts. The court further held that the council's decision-making process was flawed, as it failed to adequately consider certain aspects of the proposal. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and development consent was granted for the project, subject to specific conditions detailed in Annexure A.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent is granted to development application no. DA 91/2023 for a concept development application encompassing Stages 1 and 2 including public roads, public domain layout, building envelopes (retail, residential and childcare centre) and parking, and a detailed development application for Stage 1 including redevelopment of the southern part of the existing shopping centre, construction of basement parking, childcare centre, mixed use residential development, demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new road, associated landscaping and civil works at 353-355 Waterloo Road and 87 Norfolk Road, Greenacre, subject to the conditions of consent in 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.