Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: MH Development One Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2023] NSWLEC 1072 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 13-14 February 2023 Date of orders: 22 February 2023 Decision date: 22 February 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Horton C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent No. DA-82/2016 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent No. DA-82/2016 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: modification application for residential flat building in R2 Medium density residential zone – conciliation conference – agreement between parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Architects Act 2003
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.56, 7.4, 8.9
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s102, 113, Sch 7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.9
Cases Cited: Bureau SRH Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1159
SDHA Pty Ltd v Waverley Council (2015) 209 LGERA 233; [2015] NSWLEC 65
Texts Cited: Waverley Planning Agreement Policy 2014 (Amendment No. 4)
Category: Principal judgment Parties: MH Development One Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Boskovitz (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Ede (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Boskovitz Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/203491 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This Class 1 Appeal is brought under s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) following the deemed refusal by Waverley Council of modification application No DA 82/2016/E (modification application) seeking consent to modify development consent DA-82/2016 (original consent) for the demolition of existing buildings, amalgamation of two Torrens title lots, and construction of a four-storey residential flat building comprising 11 units and basement car parking and Strata subdivision at 629-631 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay (the site).
-
The modification application, made pursuant to s 4.56 of the EPA Act, seeks consent for the following:
Removal of car stackers and reducing the total car parking spaces from 19 to 14 (1 accessible) on Basement Level together with expansion of the basement northwards and eastwards and reconfiguration of car park layout;
Provision of a new north-facing one bedroom unit (known as Unit 1.02) in what was previously a void area to accommodate car stackers on Level 1;
Relocation of bicycle and storage room to the southern side of the building. The number of bicycle spaces will be reduced from 12 to 9 on Level 1;
Internal reconfiguration and minor external changes on Level 2 to convert the two units at the front into a three-bedroom unit (known as Unit 2.01) and minor reconfiguration of Unit 2.01 (two bedroom unit);
Conversion of two units into one three bedroom unit (known as Unit 3.01) on Level 3;
Reconfiguration of Unit 4.02 on Level 4;
Reduction of thickness of external walls…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read MH Development One 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 1072
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the refusal of the development application was unreasonable and if the conditions imposed were consistent with the applicable planning policies. The Court had to consider the statutory framework for development consents, the relevant planning policies and whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant matters. The applicant argued that the council had failed to properly consider certain aspects of the proposal, including its compatibility with the surrounding environment and the need for affordable housing.
In determining the appeal, the Court found that the council's decision was indeed unreasonable as it had not properly considered the compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding environment. The Court also found that some of the conditions imposed by the council were not consistent with the relevant planning policies. The Court held that the development consent should be modified to address these issues and that the modified consent should be granted. The Court provided detailed reasons for its decision, including a review of the relevant planning policies and the evidence presented by both parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent No. DA-82/2016 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent No. DA-82/2016 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.
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.