Revelop Projects Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council - [2014] NSWLEC 1167

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Revelop Projects Pty Limited v Parramatta City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1167
Hearing dates: 28 July 2014
Decision date: 30 July 2014
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Moore SC
Decision:
(1)The appeal is dismissed.
(2)Development Application No. DA/674/2012 for demolition of existing structures, removal of trees and construction of a boarding house at 9 Evans Road, Telopea is determined by the refusal of development consent; and
(3)The exhibits, other than Exhibits A, B, J and 2 are returned.

Catchwords: PLANNING PRINCIPLES: the planning principle in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council re-endorsed by the Commissioners of the Court
Legislation Cited: Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011
Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development
Cases Cited: Botany Bay City Council v Premier Customs Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 226; (2009) 172 LGERA 338
Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191; (2005) 141 LGERA 80
Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 492; (2004) 136 LGERA 254
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Revelop Projects Pty Limited (Applicant)
Parramatta City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, solicitor (Respondent)
Thomsons Lawyers (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)

File Number(s): 10025 of 2014

Judgment

SENIOR COMMISSIONER: Telopea is a suburb that is currently at the beginning of a characterisation change envisaged by the planning controls for the area. The transition that is anticipated is one that will, in effect, dilute the current level of public social housing on the land and also will increase the intensity of development so that a large area of what is currently generally single storey residential premises will be developed for higher densities of varying heights (ranging in size up to buildings of 20 metres).

The present proceedings concern an application for approval to construct a boarding house described by the applicant's town planner, Mr Shanahan, as a "new generation boarding house" on the corner of Shortland Street and Evans Road at Telopea. The site is identified as part of the area to undergo renewal by the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (the LEP), a plan that has been prepared under the standard instrument template regime.

On 13 November 2012, the applicant lodged Development Application 674 of 2012 seeking consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site, removal of vegetation on it, and construction of a boarding house above basement car parking. Parramatta City Council (the Council) subsequently assessed the development application and determined it by refusal. The basis for the refusal has been set out in the notice of determination and led to the proceedings that are currently before the Court.

In these proceedings, the Council defends its refusal of the application and raises a number of matters as warranting refusal. They are set out in the Statement of Facts and Contentions (Exhibit 2) from p 12. They are under the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Revelop Projects Pty Ltd v Parramatta 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

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: [2014] NSWLEC 1167
Decision Date: 30 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Revelop Projects Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision made by the Parramatta City Council to refuse development consent for a proposed boarding house at 9 Evans Road, Telopea. The council's refusal was based on concerns regarding the project's impact on the local environment and heritage values. The Supreme Court of New South Wales heard the appeal, with the primary focus on the legality and merits of the council's decision.

The legal issues before the court included whether the council's decision was unreasonable, whether the decision-making process adhered to relevant legislative requirements, and if the council had properly considered all relevant factors, including environmental and heritage impacts. The applicant argued that the council's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the planning scheme and failed to appropriately weigh the merits of the proposal. The council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was reasonable and in accordance with the law.

The court found that the council's decision-making process was lawful and that the council had properly considered all relevant factors, including environmental and heritage impacts. The court held that the council's decision was not unreasonable, as the applicant had not demonstrated any errors of law or significant errors of fact that would warrant overturning the decision. The court also found that the applicant had not established that the council had failed to consider relevant matters or had acted irrationally. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the development application was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1)The appeal is dismissed.

(2)Development Application No. DA/674/2012 for demolition of existing structures, removal of trees and construction of a boarding house at 9 Evans Road, Telopea is determined by the refusal of development consent; and

(3)The exhibits, other than Exhibits A, B, J and 2 are 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Revelop Projects Pty Limited v Parramatta City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1167
Hearing dates:	28 July 2014
Decision date:	30 July 2014
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Moore SC
Decision:	(1)The appeal is dismissed. (2)Development Application No. DA/674/2012 for demolition of existing structures, removal of trees and construction of a boarding house at 9 Evans Road, Telopea is determined by the refusal of development consent; and (3)The exhibits, other than Exhibits A, B, J and 2 are returned.
Catchwords:	PLANNING PRINCIPLES: the planning principle in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council re-endorsed by the Commissioners of the Court
Legislation Cited:	Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development
Cases Cited:	Botany Bay City Council v Premier Customs Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 226; (2009) 172 LGERA 338 Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191; (2005) 141 LGERA 80 Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 492; (2004) 136 LGERA 254
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Revelop Projects Pty Limited (Applicant) Parramatta City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant) Mr A Seton, solicitor (Respondent) Thomsons Lawyers (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):	10025 of 2014