Olsson and Associates Architects Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1254


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

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. 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'.

Details
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

Olsson and Associates Architects Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against the City of Botany Bay in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking a declaration that a development approval granted by the City to another party, Greentech, was unlawful. The dispute arose from the contention that Olsson, as the architect for a proposed development, was not properly consulted during the approval process, thereby infringing on their statutory rights under the Building Practitioners Act 2016 (NSW). The City of Botany Bay argued that proper consultation procedures were followed and that the approval was valid.

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.