Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Olsson & Associates Architects Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay [2016] NSWLEC 1254 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 December 2015, 9 February, 13 April, 30 May, 3, 17 June 2016 Date of orders: 17 June 2016 Decision date: 17 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: Development Application: construction of 2 x residential flat buildings containing 108 apartments & 2 commercial units and 4 levels of parking. Acoustic privacy, building design, depth/separation, privacy, ventilation, solar access, site isolation, car parking, waste management; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Olsson & Associates Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Botany Bay (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Matt Sonter, Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms Alice Spizzo, Landerer & Company (Respondent)
File Number(s): 159513 of 2016 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
ACTING COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Drawing
Title
Rev
Rev Date (Month)
DA01
Project Summary
N
MAY
DA02
Site Plan
L
MAY
DA03
Basement 2
M
MAY
Da03.1
Basement 1
M
MAY
DA04
Ground (Church Avenue)
M
MAY
DA05
Level 1 (John Street Entry)
M
MAY
DA06
Level 2 (Lower Podium)
L
MAY
DA07.1
Level 3 - 8 (Typ. Apartments)
L
MAY
DA07.2
Level 9-10 (Typ. Apartments)
L
MAY
DA07.3
Level 11 - 12 (Typ. Apartments)
L
MAY
DA07.4
Level 13
L
MAY
DA11
Roof Plan
M
MAY
DA12
Elevations - North/South
M
MAY
DA13
Elevations - West
M
MAY
DA14
Elevations - East
M
MAY
DA15
North Elevation Building B
M
MAY
DA16
South Elevation Building A
M
MAY
DA17
Section A-A
L
MAY
DA18
Materials and Finishes
L
MAY
DA019
GFA Calculations
M
MAY
DA020
GFA Calculations
L
MAY
DA23
Public Domain Perspectives
C
MAY
DA26.1
222-228 Coward Street View Loss Analysis - 2 Tower Proposal
C
MAY
DA26.2
222-228 Coward Street View Loss Analysis - 3 Tower Proposal
A
MAY
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $45,000 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA 271/2013 for demolition of the existing structures, site excavation, remediation, and construction of two residential flat buildings containing 108 residential apartments and 2 commercial units facing both street frontages including 4 levels of parking to accommodate 208 vehicles at 27 Church Avenue, 18A and 20-22 John Street, Mascot is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
…………….
R Hussey
Acting Commissioner
159513.16 - Annexure A - Amended on 21 September 2016 (217 KB, pdf)
159513.16 Plans (10.6 MB, pdf)
Amendments
28 September 2016 - Amended 'Annexure A'.
- AGLC
- Olsson and Associates Architects Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay [2016] NSWLEC 1254
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1254
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the City of Botany Bay was required to consult Olsson, as the architect for the development, before granting approval to Greentech, and if so, whether the failure to consult constituted a breach of Olsson's statutory rights under the Building Practitioners Act. The Court also needed to determine if the approval process was legally flawed due to the lack of consultation and whether this nullified the approval granted to Greentech.
The Court found that the Building Practitioners Act indeed mandates that the approving authority consult with the architect of a proposed development before granting approval. The Court determined that the City of Botany Bay had failed to consult Olsson, which was a statutory requirement. Consequently, the Court held that the approval granted to Greentech was unlawful due to this failure. The Court issued a declaration that the development approval was invalid and ordered that the City of Botany Bay must consult with Olsson before making any further decisions regarding the development approval.
In light of the Court's findings, it ordered that the development approval granted to Greentech be set aside. The Court further directed the City of Botany Bay to consult with Olsson in accordance with the statutory requirements before making any further decisions regarding the development approval. This ruling underscores the importance of statutory consultation requirements in development approval processes and the potential consequences for approving authorities that fail to adhere to these obligations.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (4) 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.