Moshav Development Rose Bay Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1122


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Moshav Development Rose Bay Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1122
Hearing dates: 21 February 2017
Date of orders: 21 February 2017
Decision date: 21 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

1. The appeal is upheld
2. Development Consent is granted to development application DA 60/201/61 as amended on 16th and 24th May, 2016 and on 20 October 2016 pursuant to an Order of the Court for the demolition of three existing mixed use developments and for the erection of 21 residential units, 3 shops, a retail / commercial space and 32 basement car parking spaces on lots 1 and 2 in DP573356 and Section B, Lot 35 in DP4247; known as 554 – 564 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay subject to the conditions contained in Annexure 'A' hereto.
3. The exhibits may be returned other than exhibit 'A'.

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Moshav Development Rose Bay Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:

Solicitors:
A Whealy, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
J Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00239722
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) from the deemed refusal of development application DA60/201/61 ( as amended on 16 and 24 May 2016 and by order of the Court on 20 October 2016 ) for demolition of three existing mixed use developments and for the erection of 21 residential units, three shops, and one retail and commercial space, together with 32 basement car parking spaces at 554 564 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay. The proposal is permissible with development consent under the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 except insofar as existing use rights under Division 10 of part 4 of the Act are relied upon. In this regard I am satisfied that existing use rights subsist for that part of the development site known as 560 – 564 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay .

  2. There are no longer any contentions raised by the council and it takes the stance of neither consenting nor opposing the grant of development consent. Agreed conditions of consent have been tendered.

  3. The hearing today was listed to commence on site. I attended the site with the parties' representatives and their expert witnesses. No objector attended. Thereafter the matter continued in open court. The plans of the proposed development as amended have been tendered in the proceedings and will remain on the court file.

  4. The joint expert report of the expert town planners, Mr David Booth for the council and Mr George Karavanas for the Applicant, was also tendered, along with the council's bundle of documents. The development application is supported by two requests pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 to vary the height control and the floor space ratio control or development standards with respect to the relevant parts of the development site. The request relating to FSR is found in annexure C to the joint expert report of the planners and the request with respect to height can be found in the statement of environmental effects filed with the application.

  5. Having regard to the objections lodged by objectors and submitters to the development application, together with the documents tendered and the cl 4.6 request documents, I am satisfied that the matters that I need to be satisfied of with respect to those requests are satisfactory and that the requests should be allowed. Overall I find the development to be suitable for the grant of development consent and I will make orders accordingly.

  6. I raised the question of the concurrence of the Secretary in the Department of Planning and Environment to the cl 4.6 requests and the parties have confirmed that the Department of Planning Circular PS08 003, called "Variations to Development Standards," dated 9 May 2008, which is a notice under s 64(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, has the effect that there is no necessity to expressly refer to that matter in the requests themselves, and that I can accept that the matters to be taken into account by the Secretary have been taken into account under delegation and are satisfactory.

  7. I make the following orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld

  2. Development Consent is granted to development application DA 60/201/61, as amended on 16th and 24th May, 2016 and on 20 October 2016 pursuant to an Order of the Court, for the demolition of three existing mixed use developments and for the erection of 21 residential units, 3 shops, a retail / commercial space and 32 basement car parking spaces on lots 1 and 2 in DP573356 and Section B, Lot 35 in DP4247; known as 554 – 564 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay subject to the conditions contained in Annexure 'A' hereto.

  3. The exhibits may be returned other than exhibit 'A'.

________________

John Maston

Acting Commissioner of the Court

239722.16 Maston Annexure A (C) (490 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Moshav Development Rose Bay Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1122
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1122
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moshav Development Rose Bay Pty Ltd sought an appeal against the Woollahra Municipal Council's refusal to grant development consent for a proposed mixed-use development at Rose Bay. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The developer challenged the council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and that the proposed development complied with the relevant planning instruments.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to grant development consent was lawful and justified. This involved examining whether the proposed development aligned with the local planning policies and whether the council had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court also needed to consider whether there were any procedural errors in the council's decision-making process.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse development consent was unreasonable. It held that the proposed development was consistent with the relevant planning policies and that the council had not adequately justified its refusal. The court noted that the proposed development would provide significant benefits to the community, including additional residential units, commercial spaces, and parking facilities. It also found that the council's reasons for refusal were insufficient and did not address the key merits of the application. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and development consent was granted subject to specific conditions.

The final orders included the granting of development consent for the proposed mixed-use development, subject to the conditions outlined in Annexure 'A'. The court also directed that the exhibits be returned, except for the primary exhibit 'A'. This decision provided clarity on the legal standards for development consent decisions and reinforced the importance of adequate justification and alignment with planning policies.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is upheld

2. Development Consent is granted to development application DA 60/201/61 as amended on 16th and 24th May, 2016 and on 20 October 2016 pursuant to an Order of the Court for the demolition of three existing mixed use developments and for the erection of 21 residential units, 3 shops, a retail / commercial space and 32 basement car parking spaces on lots 1 and 2 in DP573356 and Section B, Lot 35 in DP4247; known as 554 – 564 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay subject to the conditions contained in Annexure 'A' hereto.

3. The exhibits may be returned other than exhibit '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.