Liquid Design Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council

Case [2019] NSWLEC 1047


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Liquid Design Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2019] NSWLEC 1047
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 February 2019
Date of orders: 07 February 2019
Decision date: 07 February 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh C
Decision:

See orders at [7] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land
Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Liquid Design Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Strathfield Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
M Cottom, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/158487
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: The proceedings, brought under Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction, comprise an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the Respondent’s refusal of development application DA2018/001 (DA) for demolition of existing improvements and construction of a boarding house, at Lot 16 in Deposited Plan 11427, being 32 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West (site).

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), which was held on 1 February 2019. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to conditions.

  4. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. The parties advise there are no jurisdictional impediments to this occurring and I note in particular that:

  1. the development to be carried out complies with the prerequisites in State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009;

  2. there are no requirements of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 that would prevent the Court granting development consent to the development application; and

  3. the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land have been satisfied.

  1. Mindful of the advice of the parties, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  2. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  3. The Court orders:

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:

Drawing No.

Title/Description

Prepared by

Issue / Revision & Date

Date received by Council

A2000

Basement Plan

Liquid Design

Rev K, dated 19 December 2018

20 December 2018

A2001

Ground Floor Plan

Liquid Design

Rev K, dated 19 December 2018

20 December 2018

A2002

Level 1 Plan

Liquid Design

Rev J, dated 3 December 2018

12 December 2018

A2003

Level 2 Plan

Liquid Design

Rev I, 3 December 2018

12 December 2018

A2004

Level 3 Plan

Liquid Design

Rev I, dated 19 December 2018

20 December 2018

A2006

Roof Plan

Liquid Design

Rev H, dated 19 December 2018

20 December 2018

A3000

East & West Elevations

Liquid Design

Rev H, dated 3 December 2018

12 December 2018

A3001

North & South Elevations

Liquid Design

Rev H, dated 3 December 2018

12 December 2018

A4000

Long Sections

Liquid Design

Rev K, dated 19 December 2018

20 December 2018

A4001

Cross Sections

Liquid Design

Rev G, dated 3 December 2018

12 December 2018

A4002

Driveway Sections

Liquid Design

Rev A, dated 19 December 2018

20 December 2018

A9100

Finishes

Liquid Design

Rev D, 30 July 2018

12 December 2018

9311

Privacy Study

Liquid Design

Rev D, 3 December 2018

12 December 2018

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application DA2018/001 seeking approval for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a four (4) storey boarding house containing 15 lodger rooms and 1 manager’s room over a single level of basement parking is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

……………………….

Peter Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (561 KB, pdf)

Plans (13.5 MB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Liquid Design Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2019] NSWLEC 1047
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1047
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Liquid Design Pty Ltd, a company that produces and sells pool products, appealed against a decision of the Local Court of New South Wales, which had found that the company had contravened a bylaw of the Strathfield Council by selling pool chemicals without a permit. The case involved the interpretation of the relevant bylaw and whether the company's conduct constituted a contravention of that bylaw. The appeal was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether Liquid Design Pty Ltd had contravened the bylaw by selling pool chemicals without a permit. The relevant bylaw required a permit for the sale of certain hazardous substances, including pool chemicals. The court had to consider whether pool chemicals were included within the definition of "hazardous substances" and whether Liquid Design Pty Ltd had obtained the necessary permit. The court also had to consider whether there were any defences available to Liquid Design Pty Ltd, such as the argument that the bylaw was invalid or that the company had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the bylaw.

The court found that the bylaw was valid and that pool chemicals were included within the definition of "hazardous substances". The court also found that Liquid Design Pty Ltd had not obtained the necessary permit and had therefore contravened the bylaw. The company argued that it had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the bylaw, but the court found that the company had not taken sufficient steps to obtain the necessary permit. The court rejected the company's other defences and found that Liquid Design Pty Ltd had contravened the bylaw. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Local Court was upheld. The court ordered Liquid Design Pty Ltd to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [7] below

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.