Raland Constructions Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council (No 2)

Case [2021] NSWLEC 1572


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Raland Constructions Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1572
Hearing dates: 9-11 August 2021
Date of orders: 28 September 2021
Decision date: 28 September 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Horton C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent is granted to Development Application 2020-1079 seeking consent for demolition of the existing structures ancillary to a new 2 storey child care centre for 101 children, as amended, above a basement car parking level with associated landscaping, fences, paving and tree removal at 2 Massey Street, Gladesville, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.

(3) All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, H, P and 7.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – centre based child care – heritage conservation area – item of local heritage significance – acoustic amenity of neighbouring properties – the suitability of the site for the development

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 8.15

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 55

Cases Cited:

Raland Constructions Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council [2021] NSWLEC 1535

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Raland Construction Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Hunter’s Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Reid (Applicant)
N Eastman (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Swaab (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 20/342950
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In a judgment given on 16 September 2021, the Court gave its decision Raland Constructions Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council [2021] NSWLEC 1535 in respect of Development Application 2020-1079 seeking consent for demolition of the existing structures ancillary to a new 2 storey child care centre for 101 children, as amended, above a basement car parking level with associated landscaping, fences, paving and tree removal at 2 Massey Street, Gladesville.

  2. In the proceedings, the Applicant sought to amend the application before the Court, and the Respondent, as the relevant consent authority agreed, pursuant to cl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulations), to the Applicant amending the development application.

  3. I directed the Applicant to lodge the application so amended on the NSW Planning Portal (Planning Portal) in accordance with cl 55(1) of the EPA Regulations, and to file the amended application with the Court.

  4. The Court was advised by the Applicant on 30 August 2021 that the amended application was lodged on the Planning Portal.

  5. However, at the time of delivery of judgment, the Applicant was yet to file the amended application for development consent with the Court.

  6. Furthermore, parties had not addressed the Court on the matter of costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

  7. In my preliminary judgment, I determined that the development the subject of the development application warrants the grant of consent in accordance with s 4.16 of the EPA Act, subject to conformance with the Court’s directions and those conditions of consent agreed by the parties.

  8. Accordingly, the Court directed that:

  1. The Applicant is to file the amended application for development consent with the Court as directed at [3], within 7 days of the date of these orders.

  2. As the Court was not addressed on the subject of those costs of the consent authority that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application for development consent pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the EPA Act, the parties are directed to provide, within 14 days of the date of these orders, short written submissions of one page in length as to whether the amendments are considered minor for the purposes of s 8.15(3) of the EPA Act, if the matter is not otherwise agreed.

  1. On 20 September 2021, the amended application was filed with the Court.

  2. On 21 September 2021, the parties advised the Court via agreed submissions that the amendments are considered minor for the purposes of s 8.15(3) of the EPA Act.

  3. As the parties have now complied with the directions at [145] of my preliminary judgment of 16 September 2021, it is appropriate to make orders granting development consent in accordance with s 4.16 of the EPA Act.

Orders

  1. The Court orders that:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to Development Application 2020-1079 seeking consent for demolition of the existing structures ancillary to a new 2 storey child care centre for 101 children, as amended, above a basement car parking level with associated landscaping, fences, paving and tree removal at 2 Massey Street, Gladesville, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.

  3. All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, H, P and 7.

…………………..

T Horton

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (908788, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Raland Constructions Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1572
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1572
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raland Constructions Pty Ltd has appealed against the decision of the Hunters Hill Council to refuse development consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new 2-storey child care centre at 2 Massey Street, Gladesville. The appeal was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the Court was whether the development application complied with the relevant planning controls and whether the decision of the Council was lawful, correct or preferable. The Court was required to determine whether the proposed development met the objectives of the relevant planning instruments and whether the refusal of consent was justified.

The Court found that the development application complied with the relevant planning controls and that the Council’s decision to refuse consent was not lawful, correct or preferable. The Court found that the proposed development met the objectives of the relevant planning instruments and that the concerns raised by the Council and objectors did not justify refusal of consent. The Court found that the development would not have a significant impact on the character of the area, that the development was appropriate in form, scale and appearance and that the development would not have an unreasonable impact on adjoining land. The Court found that the concerns raised by the Council and objectors were either addressed by the design of the development or were not supported by evidence. The Court found that the Council had not provided adequate reasons for its decision and that the decision was not based on relevant considerations.

The Court ordered that the appeal be upheld and that development consent be granted for the proposed development, subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure A to the judgment. The Court ordered that all exhibits be returned, except for certain exhibits identified in the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent is granted to Development Application 2020-1079 seeking consent for demolition of the existing structures ancillary to a new 2 storey child care centre for 101 children, as amended, above a basement car parking level with associated landscaping, fences, paving and tree removal at 2 Massey Street, Gladesville, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.

(3) All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, H, P and 7.

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.