Toplace Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1617


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Toplace Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 1617
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 and 25 November 2020, final agreement filed 20 November 2020
Date of orders: 8 December 2020
Decision date: 08 December 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Pullinger AC
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Modification Application DA/852/2013/B for the property at 189 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, NSW is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A to this agreement.

Catchwords:

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Texts Cited:

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (July 2020)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Toplace Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Parramatta Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
G McKee (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C Morton (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/249792
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the imposition of two conditions of consent accompanying Modification Application DA/852/2013/B (the modification). In turn, the modification was required to satisfy conditions of consent imposed on the parent development consent at 189 Macquarie Street, Parramatta (the site), and was approved by the City of Parramatta Council (Council).

  2. 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 25 November 2020. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. Consistent with the Court’s COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy, published on 8 July 2020, the matter was conducted by Microsoft Teams.

  4. 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 agreement involves the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to amended conditions of consent.

  5. The parent development consent, DA/852/2013, is for the construction of 10 storeys of car parking, including 6 levels above ground, 24 storeys of residential uses containing 425 units, and ground level retail uses on the site. Consent was granted on 15 April 2015 by the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel.

  6. On 13 September 2019, Council approved DA252/2019 for the subdivision of the site into 5 stratum allotments in part to allow definition of a component of public car parking.

  7. Condition 14 of Development Consent DA252/2019 had the effect of requiring lodgement of a Modification Application to confirm detailed aspects of the provision of car parking.

  8. On 23 July 2020, the modification required by condition 14 of Development Consent DA252/2019 was approved by Council. As part of the conditions of consent, conditions 10A and 56(d) were imposed.

  9. Conditions 10A and part of 56(d), in general terms, relate to traffic management during construction and were provided to Council by Transport for NSW during the referral process associated with assessment of the modification.

  10. With the agreement of the parties, Council has provided correspondence received from solicitors representing Transport for NSW, dated 2 November 2020. I am satisfied that Transport for NSW no longer seeks to press the imposition of conditions 10A and part of 56(d).

  11. 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.

  12. The parties agree, and I am satisfied, there is no legal reason conditions 10A and the relevant part of 56(d) should not be deleted and the amended consent issued.

  13. Having considered any jurisdictional requirements and forming the necessary view required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I therefore find it is appropriate to make the orders agreed to by the parties and now dispose of the matter.

Orders

  1. The Court orders that:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Modification Application DA/852/2013/B for the property at 189 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, NSW is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A to this agreement.

………………………..

M Pullinger

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (372470, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Toplace Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 1617
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1617
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Toplace Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought judicial review of a decision made by the City of Parramatta Council, the respondent, concerning a modification application for a development application. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Land and Environment Division. The appellant challenged the council's decision to refuse the modification application, which sought to amend a previously approved development application to allow for the construction of a four-level building with a basement car park and basement retail space.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had exercised its discretion in accordance with the relevant statutory and policy framework, specifically the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and the Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2012. The appellant argued that the council had failed to properly consider the merits of the modification application and had instead relied on irrelevant or impermissible considerations. The respondent contended that the decision was lawful and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the council had acted unreasonably or in breach of any legal or policy requirements.

In determining the matter, the court found that the council had indeed failed to properly exercise its discretion and had relied on irrelevant or impermissible considerations in refusing the modification application. The court held that the council had not adequately considered the merits of the application and had instead focused on factors that were not relevant to the assessment of the proposal. The court also found that the council's decision was unreasonable and that the appellant had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and approved the modification application subject to certain conditions. The council was ordered to approve the modification application for the property at 189 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, NSW, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A to the agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Modification Application DA/852/2013/B for the property at 189 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, NSW is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A to this agreement.

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.