Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Robertson v The Council of the City of Sydney [2023] NSWLEC 1114 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 December 2022 Date of orders: 15 March 2023 Decision date: 15 March 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No. D/2021/1525 for alterations and additions to an existing residential dwelling, at 46 Kepos Street, Redfern, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – alterations and additions to an existing dwelling – heritage conservation area – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 8.7
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cll 55, 55AA, 121B
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 3 of Sch 6
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34AA
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.4, 5.10, 5.21, 6.21C
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Broughton Robertson (First Applicant)
Jenny Wong (Second Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Broughton Robertson (Self-represented) (Applicant)
A Singh (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Sydney City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/287000 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. D/2021/1525 for alterations and additions to an existing residential dwelling including internal alteration to the existing dwelling and construction of a two storey addition at the rear of the site (the proposal), at 46 Kepos Street, Redfern (the site), by the Council of the City of Sydney (the Council).
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 19 December 2022. I 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.
-
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.
-
There are preconditions to the exercise of power to grant development consent for the proposal.
Amended Plans
-
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (2000 Regulation) continues to apply to the application, because the application was lodged on 29 December 2021 and had not been determined by 1 March 2022 (s 3 of Sch 6 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021). Pursuant to s 3(2) of Sch 6 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, a requirement to use the NSW Planning Portal under the 2000 Regulation, cll 55(1), 55AA(2)(d) or 121B(1), does not apply if the development application is subject to proceedings in the Court.
-
The Council, as the consent authority, consented to the amendment of the application on 15 December 2022. The amended application amended the architectural plans the subject of the application. As a result of the amendment of the architectural plans, the parties reached agreement in principle during the conciliation conference on 19 December 2022.
-
Notwithstanding the recent changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 at subs 3(2) of Sch 6, the amended plans were lodged on the NSW planning portal on 15 December 2022.
Planning framework
-
The site is zoned R1 General Residential pursuant to Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The objectives of the zone, to which regard must be had, are:
• To provide for the housing needs of the community.
• To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.
• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
• To maintain the existing land use pattern of predominantly residential uses.
-
The proposal complies with the height of buildings development standard of 9m under cl 4.3 of LEP 2012.
-
The proposal complies with the floor space ratio development standard of 1:1 under cl 4.4 of LEP 2012.
-
The site is within the Baptist Street Heritage Conservation Area C53 (HCA). Pursuant to cl 5.10(4) of LEP 2012, the Court, exercising the functions of the consent authority, must consider the effect of the proposal on the heritage significance of the HCA. The existing dwelling is identified as contributory to the heritage significance of the HCA. I accept the Council’s submission that the proposal will not have any adverse effects on the HCA.
-
The site is identified as being subject to flooding and defined as low to medium affectation, which is mainly at the rear of the site and requires the ground floor level at the rear of the stie to be 0.3m above the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood level, pursuant to cl 5.21(2) of LEP 2012. The AEP depth for the site is up to 0.4m. The rear study space of the proposal is at least 300mm above the relevant kerb reference point and is consistent with the applicable floodplain management guidelines. I accept the Council’s submission that all the relevant matters under cl 5.21 have been satisfied.
-
I accept the Council’s submission that the proposal exhibits design excellence having regard to the matters listed under cl 6.21C(2) of LEP 2012.
-
I accept the Council’s submission that the site has been used for residential purposes since at least 1900 and so the site is not contaminated and is suitable for the proposal pursuant to s 4.6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.
Conclusion
-
I have considered the submissions made by the Council in the Statement of Jurisdictional Issues filed with the Court on 03 February 2023 and I am satisfied, based the evidence before me, that the agreement of the parties is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
Orders
-
The orders of the Court are:
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. D/2021/1525 for alterations and additions to an existing residential dwelling, at 46 Kepos Street, Redfern, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
____________
Susan O’Neill
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (193477, pdf)
**********
- AGLC
- Robertson v The Council of the City of Sydney [2023] NSWLEC 1114
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 1114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling complied with the relevant planning and development laws, and whether the application should be granted consent. The court had to consider the merits of the application in light of the local council's planning scheme, the environmental impact of the proposed works, and the overall suitability of the development within the surrounding area. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether any conditions attached to the approval would adequately mitigate any potential adverse impacts on the neighbourhood and environment.
In its decision, the court found that the proposed alterations and additions were in compliance with the relevant planning and development laws. The court was satisfied that the development was consistent with the local planning scheme and would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The court also determined that the conditions proposed by the Council were reasonable and would adequately address any potential concerns. Consequently, the court upheld the appeal and granted consent for the development, subject to the specified conditions.
The court's orders were that the appeal was upheld and that the development application was granted consent, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A. The Council's decision to refuse the application was set aside, and the applicant was entitled to proceed with the proposed alterations and additions to the residential dwelling at 46 Kepos Street, Redfern.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No. D/2021/1525 for alterations and additions to an existing residential dwelling, at 46 Kepos Street, Redfern, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
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.