Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Progress East Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1029 Hearing dates: 4 December and 14 December 2018 Date of orders: 06 February 2019 Decision date: 06 February 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh C Decision: (1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Consent is granted for the modifications sought in respect of development consent DA 266/2015/C for the alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building at 131 Mount Street, Coogee, subject to the schedule of modified conditions set out in Annexure “A” and the consolidated conditions as set out in Annexure “B”.
(3) The exhibits, other than exhibits A, C, 2, 3 and 4, may be returned.Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Modification of development consent; s 4.55(1A) of EPA Act; whether substantially the same development; whether minimal environmental impact; amenity; objections; consent orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Cases Cited: Agricultural Equity Investments Pty Ltd v Westlime Pty Limited (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 75
Dravin Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 38Texts Cited: Practice Note - Class 1 Development Appeals
Randwick Development Control Plan 2013Category: Principal judgment Parties: Progress East Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
M Jaku, Jaku Legal (Applicant)
V McGrath, Norton Rose Fulbright (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/174588 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
Introduction
-
This judgment concerns a Class 1 appeal brought by Progress East Pty Ltd under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). The appeal is against Randwick City Council’s (Council) refusal of an application to modify a development consent. The application is referenced as DA 266/2015/C. DA 266/2015/C was lodged under s 4.55 (1A) of the EPA Act.
-
The application seeks to modify an approved development being a part three and part four storey residential flat building comprising six residential units (3×1 bedroom and 3×2 bedroom) with basement parking and landscaping, at 131 Mount Street, Coogee, also described as Lots 1 to 6 in Strata Plan 96380 (site). The proposed modification involves alterations to the approved residential flat building to reconfigure certain bedrooms, bathrooms and storage areas.
-
There is some background to the application. A residential flat building currently exists on the site. However, the as-built development included some elements which were inconsistent with the original consent. The effect of these inconsistencies was suggested to introduce the potential for additional sleeping rooms within the development. Council’s contentions (Exhibit B) originally maintained concerns that the proposal was not “substantially the same development” (a jurisdictional requirement of modification applications generally) as a consequence of the additional capacity for sleeping rooms.
-
Changes to the original appeal plans (Exhibit C) were undertaken in response to this and other contentions raised by the Council. The amended plans, and dialogue in regard to conditions, had reached the point that the contentions has fallen away and agreed consent orders for this matter were prepared by the parties, and proposed to the Court, prior to the commencement…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Progress East Pty Ltd v Randwick City 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
- [2019] NSWLEC 1029
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the modifications proposed by Progress East Pty Ltd were consistent with the original development consent and whether the modifications would cause undue harm or detriment to the neighbourhood or surrounding properties. The court also had to consider whether the modifications aligned with the planning policies and objectives of the local council.
The court, in its reasoning, found that the modifications proposed by Progress East Pty Ltd were in line with the original development consent and did not cause undue harm or detriment to the neighbourhood or surrounding properties. The court also determined that the modifications complied with the planning policies and objectives of the council. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and consent was granted for the modifications sought. The exhibits, other than certain specified ones, were allowed to be returned.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Consent is granted for the modifications sought in respect of development consent DA 266/2015/C for the alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building at 131 Mount Street, Coogee, subject to the schedule of modified conditions set out in Annexure “A” and the consolidated conditions as set out in Annexure “B”.
(3) The exhibits, other than exhibits A, C, 2, 3 and 4, may be returned.
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.