Staldone Turramurra Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1468


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Staldone Turramurra Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2020] NSWLEC 1468
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 September 2020
Date of orders: 06 October 2020
Decision date: 06 October 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Clay AC
Decision:

See orders at [9] below

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – demolition of existing improvements and construction of a residential flat building – conciliation – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Staldone Turramurra Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Lane Cove Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Staunton (Applicant)
J Corradini-Bird (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/309223
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal by the Respondent of a Development Application No. DA94/2019 for the demolition of existing structures,   removal of 22 trees, construction of a 5 storey residential flat building containing 37 apartments (5 x 1 bedroom, 27 x 2 bedroom and 5 x 3 bedroom) over 2 levels of basement car parking containing 65 car parking spaces, 5 motorcycle spaces and 15 bicycle spaces and associated landscaping and stormwater works on the land at 640-646 Mowbray Road, Lane Cove North (the site).

  2. On 21 September 2020 I presided over a conciliation conference between the parties pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).

  3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement in principle as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The proposed decision was to grant leave to the Applicant to amend the development application, uphold the appeal and grant development consent to the development application subject to conditions.

  4. An agreement pursuant to s 34 of the LEC Act was filed by the parties on 21 September 2020 giving effect to the agreement in principle. The parties agreed, as do I, that the amendments in respect of which leave is to be granted are minor and accordingly the provisions s 8.15(3) EPA Act do not apply.

  5. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement if the proposed decision the subject of the agreement is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  6. The parties’ agreement involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. The parties have provided to the Court a statement of the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites that they say are satisfied so this function can be exercised which is Annexure A hereto. I agree with the parties’ conclusions for the reasons stated and on the basis of the documents referred to.

  7. 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.

  8. The parties have not raised and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Further, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.

  9. The Court orders:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans and documents:

DWG NO.

DESCRIPTION

PREPARED BY

REV

DATE

Cover Page

Wolski Coppin Architecture

18/09/2020

DA01C

Lower Basement

Wolski Coppin Architecture

C

03/09/2020

DA02F

Basement

Wolski Coppin Architecture

F

16/09/2020

DA03D

Ground

Wolski Coppin Architecture

D

16/09/2020

DA04D

Typical Plans (L1, L2, L3 similar)

Wolski Coppin Architecture

D

16/09/2020

DA05C

Level 4

Wolski Coppin Architecture

C

16/09/2020

DA06C

Roof & Site Plan

Wolski Coppin Architecture

C

16/09/2020

DA07B

Section AA & Section BB

Wolski Coppin Architecture

B

16/09/2020

DA08B

Driveway/Ramp Sections

Wolski Coppin Architecture

B

16/09/2020

DA09B

Elevations 01

Wolski Coppin Architecture

B

16/09/2020

DA10B

Elevations 02

Wolski Coppin Architecture

B

16/09/2020

F01A

Finishes 1

Wolski Coppin Architecture

A

14/05/2020

F02A

Finishes 2

Wolski Coppin Architecture

A

14/05/2020

69.20(19)/330’A’ 1/2

Landscape Plan

iScape Landscape Architecture

A

18/09/20

69.20(19)/331’A”2/2

Low Water Use Planting Plan

iScape Landscape Architecture

A

18/09/20

CC180535C1

Cover Sheet & Notes

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C2

Stormwater Management Plan – Ground Floor Sheet 1

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C3

Stormwater Management Plan – Ground Floor Sheet 2

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C4

Stormwater Management Plan – Ground Floor Sheet 3

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C5

Stormwater Management Plan – Basement

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C6

Stormwater Management Plan – Lower Basement

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C7

Stormwater Management Detail Sheet (No. 1)

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C8

Stormwater Management Detail Sheet (No. 2)

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C9

Stormwater Management Detail Sheet (No. 3)

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C10

Stormwater Management Detail Sheet (No. 4)

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C11

Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C12

Erosion and Sediment Control Notes

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

CC180535C13

Erosion & Sediment Control Detail Sheet

ACOR Consultants (CC) Pty Ltd

G

18/09/20

DOCUMENT

AUTHOR

REV

DATE

BASIX Certificate No. 1013069M_05

Senica Consultancy Group Pty Ltd

-

18 September 2020

Site Waste Minimisation and Operational Waste Management Plan

Senica Consultancy Group Pty Ltd

-

18 September 2020

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No. DA94/2019 for the demolition of existing structures, removal of 22 trees, construction of a 5 storey residential flat building containing 37 apartments (5 x 1 bedroom, 27 x 2 bedroom and 5 x 3 bedroom) over 2 levels    of basement car parking containing 65 car parking spaces, 5 motorcycle spaces and 15 bicycle spaces and associated landscaping and stormwater works on the land at 640-646 Mowbray Road, Lane Cove North is approved subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “B”.

…………………………

P Clay

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (188834, pdf)

Annexure B (373246, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Staldone Turramurra Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2020] NSWLEC 1468
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1468
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Staldone Turramurra Pty Ltd and Lane Cove Council was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the respondent council had acted outside its statutory powers when it issued a notice requiring the appellant to provide information regarding its land use and development. Staldone Turramurra Pty Ltd contested the council’s notice, arguing that it was unlawful and beyond the scope of the council's statutory authority. The appellant sought a declaration that the notice was invalid, as well as an injunction preventing the council from enforcing it.

The court had to determine whether the council's notice was within its statutory powers under the relevant planning and development laws. The appellant argued that the notice went beyond what was necessary for the council to carry out its statutory functions and constituted an overreach. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the notice was a legitimate exercise of its powers aimed at ensuring compliance with planning regulations. The court examined the statutory provisions and considered the purpose and scope of the council's authority in issuing such notices.

In its judgment, the court concluded that the council's notice was not an overreach of its statutory powers. It found that the information requested by the council was relevant and necessary for the enforcement of planning laws. The court held that the council had acted within its authority and the notice was valid. Consequently, the appellant’s application for a declaration that the notice was invalid and for an injunction was dismissed. The court ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [9] 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.