Salmon & Ors v Holroyd CC

[2006] NSWLEC 699

NEW SOUTH WALES LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

CITATION:     Salmon & Ors v Holroyd CC [2006]  NSWLEC 699

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Salmon & Ors

RESPONDENT
Holroyd City Council

CASE NUMBER:       11526 of 2004, 11527 of 2004, 11529 of 2004, 11530 of 2004, 11531 of 2004 and 11532    of             2004

CATCH WORDS:      Development Application

LEGISLATION CITED:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Holroyd Local Environmental Plan

CORAM:        Hussey C

DATES OF HEARING:          1/11/2006

EX TEMPORE DATE:           01/11/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

APPLICANT
Mr J. Farah, soliciotr
of Sanford Legal

RESPONDENT
Ms K. Gerathy, solicitor
of Abbot Tout

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey

1 November 2006

11526 of 2004                 Salmon & Ors v Holroyd City Council

11527 of 2004
11529 of 2004
11530 of 2004
11531 of 2004
11532 of 2004

This decision was given extemporaneously.  It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

JUDGMENT

1. Following the submissions from Ms Gerathy, I am in a position to determine this on the basis that the matter has been remitted for continuation of the original proceedings.  I understand now that the final plans for approval that were originally not provided and were the main reason for the proceedings being dismissed have now been provided.  These final plans have been assessed by council, together with the conditions of consent that would apply to this development.  That procedure has resulted in the parties agreeing to Consent Orders.

2. For the Consent Orders I note that there were no objectors and therefore there is no necessity to advise or notify these consent orders. 

1. With the Consent Orders I see that in some of these matters, bearing in mind that there six separate applications, there is reference to deferred commencement conditions.  The deferred commencement conditions refer to what I understand are relatively minor amendments to the landscape plan in terms of adjustments for the length of the lots, I accept that.  It also refers to final design requirements for the OSD on-site detention tanks and I understand from the submissions that concept plans for these OSD systems have been provided and assessed by council, so that the condition just requires the final detail design in accordance with the concept plans to ensure that it works effectively.

1. I also understand that all the conditions of consent are basically those that were covered in the original proceedings.  On that basis then the Court makes the Consent Orders in respect of:

   Appeal No. 11526 of 2004.

   1.     The appeal is upheld.

   2.     Development Consent is granted for the demolition of existing structures, Torrens subdivision of Lot 73 DP 8768 into 2 lots, construction of an access driveway and associated drainage works, subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.

   Appeal No. 11527 of 2004

   1.Appeal is upheld.

   2.Development Consent is granted for the erection of a two storey dual occupancy and associated Torrens subdivision into 2 lots, on Proposed Lot 1 in the resubdivision of Lot 73 DP 8768, subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.

   Appeal No. 11529 of 2004

   1.          Appeal is upheld.

   2.          Development Consent is granted for the erection of a single storey dual occupancy and associated Torrens subdivision into 2 lots, on Proposed Lot 2 in the resubdivision of Lot 73 DP 8768, subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.

   Appeal No. 11530 of 2004

   1.          Appeal is upheld.

   2.          Development Consent is granted for the demolition of existing structures, Torrens subdivision of Lot 92 DP 8768 into 2 lots, construction of an access driveway and associated drainage works, subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.

   Appeal No. 11531 of 2004

   1.          Appeal is upheld.

   2.          Development Consent is granted for the erection of a two storey dual occupancy and associated Torrens subdivision into 2 lots, on Proposed Lot 1 in the resubdivision of Lot 92 DP 8768, subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.

   Appeal No. 11532 of 2004

   1.          Appeal is upheld.

   2.          Development Consent is granted for the erection of a single storey dual occupancy and associated Torrens subdivision into 2 lots, on Proposed Lot 2 in the resubdivision of Lot 92 DP 8768 subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.

   ___________________

   R Hussey
   Commissioner of the Court
   ljr