Hyside Projects Subthree Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council No 2

Case [2022] NSWLEC 1122


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hyside Projects Subthree Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council No 2 [2022] NSWLEC 1122
Hearing dates: 9, 10 and 30 September 2021
Date of orders: 09 March 2022
Decision date: 09 March 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Espinosa C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The Appeal is upheld.

(2) The applicant’s written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard in cl 4.3 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 is upheld.

(3) Development Application No 2020/0247 seeking consent for the erection of a residential flat building containing 99 apartments, site preparation including demolition, excavation, landscaping and other related works at 10 Chapman Street Strathfield, legally described as Lot 62 in DP 1266884 is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

(4) Exhibits 4, 5, 12 and 13 to be returned.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – residential flat building – contravention of maximum building height development standard – bulk and scale – flood planning - apartment design principles – view loss – bicycle parking – waste management - orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 8.7

Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013, cll 4.3, 4.6

Cases Cited:

Hyside Projects Subthree Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2022] NSWLEC 1062

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Hyside Projects Subthree Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Canada Bay Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Hale SC (Applicant)
H Irish (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Fortis Law (Applicant)
Hall and Wilcox (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/16794
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the deemed refusal of Development Application No 2020/0247 seeking consent for the erection of a residential flat building containing 99 apartments, site preparation including demolition, excavation, landscaping and other related works (the Proposed Development) at 10 Chapman Street Strathfield, legally described as Lot 62 in DP 1266884 (formerly known and referred to as 10-12 Chapman Street Strathfield, legally described as Lot A in DP 378136 and Lot 52 in DP 1252433) (the Site)

  2. On 11 February 2022, I handed down my reasons for judgment in the Class 1 appeal (Hyside Projects Subthree Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2022] NSWLEC 1062) to uphold the appeal subject to conditions.

  3. I directed the Council to prepare and file conditions of consent in the requisite template and to provide them to the Court.

  4. The Council filed the conditions in accordance with my direction on 2 March 2022 and the parties drew to my attention the additional condition of consent at ‘Condition 3 DAGCA08 – Sydney Trains Requirements’ explaining that this additional condition has been included at the request of Sydney Trains.

  5. On 22 February 2022, after having read the judgment, Sydney Trains advised the parties if the words “the relevant” ahead of all references to a “Construction Certificate” are inserted in accordance with [104] of judgment, ‘Sydney Trains will require involvement to ensure that appropriate conditions are applied to and complied with by the Applicant for all stages of development that are considered relevant by Sydney Trains.’

  6. While this condition is in addition to the conclusions of the judgment at [102]-[130], the parties have both agreed to its insertion and for the reason at par 5 in this judgment, the Court will grant consent in accordance with the conditions of consent filed on 2 March 2022.

Orders

  1. The Court orders that:

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. The applicant’s written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard in cl 4.3 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 is upheld.

  3. Development Application No 2020/0247 seeking consent for the erection of a residential flat building containing 99 apartments, site preparation including demolition, excavation, landscaping and other related works at 10 Chapman Street Strathfield, legally described as Lot 62 in DP 1266884 is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. Exhibits 4, 5, 12 and 13 to be returned.

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (535729, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Hyside Projects Subthree Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council No 2 [2022] NSWLEC 1122
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 1122
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hyside Projects Subthree Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Canada Bay Council to refuse consent to a proposed residential flat building at 10 Chapman Street Strathfield. The Council had rejected the application on the basis that it contravened certain development standards outlined in the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Council’s decision was legally sound and whether the proposed development complied with the relevant planning provisions.

The key legal issues before the Court involved interpreting the terms of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013, specifically sections 4.3 and 4.6, and determining whether the proposed development complied with these standards. The applicant argued that the Council had erred in its interpretation of the development standards and in its assessment of the application against these standards. The Court had to assess whether the Council's decision was reasonable and lawful, and whether the applicant's request to justify the contravention of the development standards was valid.

The Court found that the Council had erred in its interpretation of the development standards and in its assessment of the application against these standards. It held that the Council's decision was not in accordance with the law as it had misinterpreted the development standards and failed to properly consider the applicant's request to justify the contravention. The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated that the proposed development complied with the relevant planning provisions and that the Council’s refusal to consent was therefore unlawful. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal and approved the development application subject to certain conditions.

In light of the findings, the Court ordered that the appeal be upheld, the applicant's request to justify the contravention be upheld, and the development application be approved subject to specific conditions. Additionally, certain exhibits were to be returned to the applicant. This decision underscores the importance of proper interpretation and application of planning provisions by local councils.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The Appeal is upheld.

(2) The applicant’s written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard in cl 4.3 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 is upheld.

(3) Development Application No 2020/0247 seeking consent for the erection of a residential flat building containing 99 apartments, site preparation including demolition, excavation, landscaping and other related works at 10 Chapman Street Strathfield, legally described as Lot 62 in DP 1266884 is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

(4) Exhibits 4, 5, 12 and 13 to be returned.

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.