Provident Homes Pty Ltd v Bayside Council

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Provident Homes Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2021] NSWLEC 1011
Hearing dates: 13-14 October 2020, final documentation filed 22 October 2020
Date of orders: 12 January 2021
Decision date: 12 January 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh C
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Development application No. 2019/88 for a boarding house at 19 Valda Avenue Arncliffe is refused.

(3) The exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibits U, V, W and 2.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – boarding house – initial development in precinct up-zoned from low density to high density residential – design excellence – relationship with public reserve – street activation – relationship with adjacent site and its future development prospects

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Rockdale Local Environmental Plan

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Cases Cited:

Karavellas v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 251

Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council (2005) 141 LGERA 80; [2005] NSWLEC 191

Texts Cited:

Apartment Design Guide

Land and Environment Court, COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (March or July 2020)

Rockdale Development Control Plan 2011

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Provident Homes Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Smith (Applicant)
M Staunton (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/197693
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: These proceedings, brought under Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction, are an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘EPA Act’) against Bayside Council’s deemed refusal of Development Application No. 2019/88 (‘DA’). With amendments to the application, leave for which was granted by the Court, the DA is for demolition of existing structures and construction of an eight storey boarding house comprising 38 boarding rooms, a manager’s room and two levels of basement car parking at 19 Valda Avenue Arncliffe, legally described as Lot 100 DP 1230309 (‘site’).

Site and setting

  1. I would note here that for the descriptive material that follows, I rely on the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions (‘Ex 2’) prepared by Bayside Council (‘Council’).

Site

  1. The site is located at the south-eastern end of Valda Avenue. It is a corner allotment on the southern side of the street and is some 522.9m² in area. The site has a primary frontage to Valda Avenue of 12.51m and a secondary frontage to Marsh Street of 45.45m. The site’s side boundaries are somewhat angled, rather than perpendicular, to Valda Avenue. In turn the site width might be better understood by the rear boundary dimension, shown as 11.37m in architectural plans. The site slopes from the rear towards the front boundary with a fall of some 3.2m.

Locality

  1. Older style single and two storey dwellings are located in the site environs commonly with pitched and tiled roof forms and soft landscaping within the front setback areas. To the south of the site, on the opposite side of Marsh Street, is a well vegetated…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Provident Homes Pty Ltd v Bayside 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1011
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Provident Homes Pty Ltd sought to appeal the refusal by Bayside Council to grant approval for a development application concerning a boarding house at 19 Valda Avenue Arncliffe. The dispute revolved around the procedural fairness and the substantive merits of the application, with the council maintaining that the application did not comply with certain planning regulations and that the proposed development did not align with the council's planning policies. The appeal was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which was tasked with determining the validity of the council's decision and the procedural fairness in handling the application.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council's refusal of the development application was lawful and whether the council provided the applicant with adequate opportunities to be heard and to address any concerns about the application. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and whether it adhered to the principles of procedural fairness as outlined in the relevant legislation. The applicant argued that the council failed to adequately address their submissions and that the decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the planning scheme.

The court found that the council's decision was well-reasoned and supported by evidence. It held that the applicant was given ample opportunity to present their case and address any concerns raised by the council. The court also determined that the council's interpretation of the planning scheme was correct and that the proposed development did not align with the council's planning policies. The applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness were rejected, as the court found that the council had followed the appropriate procedures in handling the application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the development application was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Development application No. 2019/88 for a boarding house at 19 Valda Avenue Arncliffe is refused.

(3) The exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibits U, V, W and 2.

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.