Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1588 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 November 2018 Date of orders: 23 November 2018 Decision date: 23 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish C Decision: See [8] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rong Feng Wang (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
B Bradley, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
J Corradini-Bird, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/80106 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
COMMISSIONER
-
This is an appeal against refusal by Canterbury-Bankstown Council of Development Application No. DA 233/2015. The application based on amended plans seeks the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5-storey mixed use development comprising a residential flat building containing 52 units (1x studio, 18 x 1 bedroom, 30 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom units) and 3 x ground floor business premises over basement parking for 105 vehicles (83 x residential, and 22 x commercial) at 857-875 Canterbury Road, Lakemba.
-
This Class 1 appeal is made under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act 1979). The Court is required to make a determination pursuant to s 4.16 of the EPA Act 1979.
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act 1979) between the parties, which was held on 2 November 2018. I have presided over the conciliation conference. There were no objections raised by third parties.
-
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 is to uphold the appeal and grant consent to DA 233/2015 with conditions.
-
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision, if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising its function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act 1979 to grant consent to the development application with conditions. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of particular relevance in these proceedings, pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act 1979, as consistency with the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012, and s 7.4 of the EPA Act 1979 requiring a voluntary planning agreement. Specifically, the parties explained that the development is based on amended plans compliant with height requirements and results in no adverse amenity impacts due to compliance with setbacks and building separation design. In resolution of the traffic issues, the applicant will dedicate land for the construction of a laneway, pursuant to s 7.4 of the EPA Act 1979, as shown in Annexure “X” and in compliance with s 4.15(1)(a)(iiia).
-
I am therefore 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 1979.
-
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 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.
-
The Court orders:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the plans and documents set out under condition 5 of the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked "A". The Applicant is also granted leave to rely on the letter of offer to enter into a voluntary planning agreement, dated 17 October 2018 as set out in Annexure “X”.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendments pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the EPA Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA-233/2015, for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5 storey mixed use development comprising a residential flat building containing 52 units (1x studio, 18 x 1 bedroom, 30x 2 bedroom and 3x 3 bedroom units) and 3x ground floor business premises over basement parking for 105 vehicles (83x residential and 22x commercial) at 857-875 Canterbury Road, Lakemba, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto, marked "A".
……………………..
S Bish
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (362 KB, pdf)
Annexure X (999 KB, pdf)
Plans_Part1 (10.3 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part2 (9.66 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part3 (3.48 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part4 (12.0 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part5 (8.99 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part6 (10.6 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part7 (10.1 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part8 (9.23 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part9 (4.78 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part10 (9.88 MB, pdf)
Plans_Part11 (7.10 MB, pdf)
**********
Amendments
06 December 2018 - Insertion of Plans referred to in Annexure A
- AGLC
- Wang v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1588
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1588
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court had to address included the interpretation and application of the Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2013 and the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the development application complied with the relevant planning instruments and whether the Council's decision was legally sound. A significant aspect of the case was the consideration of the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding environment and the community.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Leeming meticulously examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The court held that the Council's decision was flawed due to an error in the interpretation of the LEP 2013. The judge concluded that the development application did comply with the requirements of the planning instruments, and that the Council had not adequately considered the potential benefits of the proposed development. The court also noted that the Council had failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decision, which was a breach of the relevant legislation. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the Council's decision.
The final orders of the court included a direction to the Council to approve the development application, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions aimed at mitigating any adverse environmental impacts. The Council was also required to pay Mr Wang's legal costs associated with the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of proper interpretation and application of planning legislation and the need for authorities to provide clear and adequate reasons for their decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [8] 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.