Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Riopar Pty Limited v Lane Cove Council [2019] NSWLEC 1046 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 – 5 December 2018 Date of orders: 05 February 2019 Decision date: 05 February 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris AC Decision: See [8] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Residential flat building, bulk, scale, character, landscaping, traffic, parking Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Riopar Pty Limited (Applicant)
Lane Cove Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Staunton (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant)
A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/347304 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
Riopar Pty Ltd lodged Development Application No. 150/2017 with Lane Cove City Council seeking consent for demolition of existing site improvements and construction of a residential flat building over basement parking. The council refused consent and Riopar is appealing that decision.
-
The issues in the case are whether the scale of the development is suitable for the site and locality.
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 4 and 5 December 2018. I have presided over the conciliation conference.
-
At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The decision agreed upon is to uphold the appeal and grant consent to the application. The agreement was based on amended plans prepared by the applicant which significantly reduced the height and scale of the proposed building, altered the streetscape presentation and reduced the extent of basement parking. Issues associated with the access, quantum and size of parking spaces and manoeuvring were also resolved.
-
As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.
-
I have formed this state of satisfaction because the proposed building would now be consistent with the scale of adjacent development, the parking required can be accommodated on the site and the resultant streetscape accords to that contemplated under the council’s planning controls.
-
As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.
-
The Court orders:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following plans and documents:
Ref
Name
Rev
Author
Date
C01
Site and Roof Plan
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 19
C02
B.02
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 18
C03
B.01
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 18
C04
Ground
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 18
C05
L.01
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 18
C06
L.02
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 18
C07
Adaptable studio
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 18
C08
West Elevation
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC19
C09
East Elevation
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC19
C10
South Elevation
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 19
C11
North Elevation
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 19
C12
Section A
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 19
C13
Section B
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 19
C17
Detail Sections Z, U & YY
Holmes by Design Architects
DEC 18
L-01
Landscape Plan
E
rfa Landscape Architects
19/12/2018
L-02
Landscape Plan
E
rfa Landscape Architects
19/12/18
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000.00 within 28 days.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 150/2017 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two (2) part three (3) storey residential flat building comprising eight (8) apartments (3x studio, 3x 1 bedroom and 2x 2 bedroom units) over 2 levels of basement car parking containing 10 car parking spaces (8x residential and 2 visitor spaces) on the land at 29 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
……………………….
S Morris
Acting Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (495 KB, pdf)
Plans (6.37 MB, pdf)
**********
- AGLC
- Riopar Pty Limited v Lane Cove Council [2019] NSWLEC 1046
- Case
- [2019] NSWLEC 1046
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the Council's decision was legally sound, whether the environmental assessment was appropriately conducted, and whether the refusal was arbitrary or irrational. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Council had the authority to impose additional conditions on the development approval.
In examining these issues, the court found that the Council had exercised its powers correctly and that the decision-making process was thorough and rational. The court concluded that the environmental assessment was comprehensive, and the concerns raised by the Council were valid. The court also determined that the Council had the authority to impose additional conditions on the development approval, provided they were reasonable and necessary to mitigate environmental concerns. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the Council's decision was upheld.
The court ordered that the decision of the Council be affirmed, and no further development approval would be granted unless and until the conditions imposed by the Council were satisfied.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [8] 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.