Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Season Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2021] NSWLEC 1181 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 February 2021 Date of orders: 16 April 2021 Decision date: 16 April 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Espinosa C Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The application is upheld.
(2) Pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the development consent D/2018/1314 granted by the Court on 29 November 2019 in proceeding 2019/21763 (as modified), for alterations and additions to an approved mixed use development (D/2015/421), at 22-38 Yurong Street, Darlinghurst, is modified in accordance with the conditions of consent set out in Annexure “A”.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT – modification application to modify development consent granted by the Court – air conditioning on roof – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012
Texts Cited: Sydney Development Control Plan 2012
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Season Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
C McEwen SC (Applicant)
P Canning (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/287416 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 - Modification application pursuant to s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being Modification Application number D/2018/1314/C to modify a development consent D/2018/1314 granted by the Court on 29 November 2019 in proceeding 2019/21763 (as modified) (the Court Consent) for alterations and additions to an approved mixed use development (D/2015/421), seeking consent to modify development consent by making a minor modification to the distribution of air conditioning units (the Modification Application) at 22-38 Yurong Street, Darlinghurst (the Site)
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 18 February 2021. 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. This decision involved granting development consent to modify development consent granted by the Court on 29 November 2019 subject to conditions. I note that the Development Application was amended following the grant of leave to rely on amended plans on 10 February 2021 and the plans listed in the conditions of consent include the amended plans.
-
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 4.55(8) of the EPA Act to modify a consent granted by it.
-
There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be the terms of s 4.55 of the EPA Act.
-
The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied.
-
Firstly, the Modification Application is of minimal environmental impact and the parties rely on the content in pp 14 and 15 of the Section 4.55(8) Planning Statement prepared by Sutherland & Associates Planning dated September 2020 (the Planning Statement). I have read this document and adopt the reasons listed in the Planning Statement as follows:
The approved development already has AC units approved and the Modification Application does not introduce any new elements but rather simply redistributes some AC units from the lower rooftop area to the primary rooftop area.
The Modification Application does not result in any change to any other of the approved configuration of the building.
The nature of the Modification Application does not generate any issues which require any further analysis and can only be described as of minor environmental impact.
-
For these reasons I am also satisfied that the Modification Application is substantially the same development. I note that the purpose of the reconfiguration is to resolve a technical problem with the approved air conditioning configuration.
-
Secondly, the parties identify that the Modification Application utilises high quality materials and satisfies the provisions of cl 6.21 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 regarding Design Excellence.
-
Finally, the Modification Application was notified in accordance with Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 and no submissions were received.
-
I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.
-
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 application is upheld.
Pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the development consent D/2018/1314 granted by the Court on 29 November 2019 in proceeding 2019/21763 (as modified), for alterations and additions to an approved mixed use development (D/2015/421), at 22-38 Yurong Street, Darlinghurst, is modified in accordance with the conditions of consent set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
E Espinosa
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (265696, pdf)
Plans (3136896, pdf)
**********
- AGLC
- Season Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2021] NSWLEC 1181
- Case
- [2021] NSWLEC 1181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the modifications sought by the plaintiff were within the scope of the original development consent and whether the proposed changes complied with the relevant planning laws and policies. The court also needed to consider whether additional public consultation was necessary before the modifications could be approved. In deciding these issues, the court considered the terms of the original consent, the relevant planning laws and policies, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the modifications sought by the plaintiff were within the scope of the original consent and that the proposed changes complied with the relevant planning laws and policies. The court also found that additional public consultation was not necessary before the modifications could be approved.
The court held that the development consent granted to the plaintiff should be modified in accordance with the conditions set out in Annexure “A”. The court found that the modifications sought by the plaintiff were reasonable and necessary to ensure the project could proceed as intended. The court also found that the modifications complied with the relevant planning laws and policies and that additional public consultation was not necessary. The court ordered that the development consent be modified as set out in Annexure “A”. The plaintiff was ordered to comply with the conditions of consent set out in Annexure “A” and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the modifications were carried out in accordance with the modified consent.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The application is upheld.
(2) Pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the development consent D/2018/1314 granted by the Court on 29 November 2019 in proceeding 2019/21763 (as modified), for alterations and additions to an approved mixed use development (D/2015/421), at 22-38 Yurong Street, Darlinghurst, is modified in accordance with the conditions of consent set out in 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.