Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zam Zam Developments Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1468 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 August 2018 Date of orders: 31 August 2018 Decision date: 31 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009Category: Principal judgment Parties: Zam Zam Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
A Gough, Storey & Gough (Applicant)
S Shneider, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/227408 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act. As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to rely on an amended development application incorporating the following plans and documents:
Plan Number
Prepared By
Revision No.
Dated
DRWG No. A1101
Ghazi Al Ali
D
26/03/2018
DRWG No. A1200
Ghazi Al Ali
D
20/03/2018
DRWG No. A1201
Ghazi Al Ali
D
20/03/2018
DRWG No. A1202
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1203
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1204
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1205
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1206
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1207
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1209
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1210
Ghazi Al Ali
A
20/03/2018
DRWG No. A1300
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1301
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1302
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1400
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1401
Ghazi Al Ali
E
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1402
Ghazi Al Ali
D
20/03/2018
DRWG No. A1403
Ghazi Al Ali
C
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A1404
Ghazi Al Ali
B
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A2200
Ghazi Al Ali
C
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A2201
Ghazi Al Ali
D
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A2202
Ghazi Al Ali
D
10/04/2018
DRWG No. A3001
Ghazi Al Ali
P
31/05/2018
DRWG No. L01A
Building footprint as per DRWG No. A1202 Rev E, dated 10/04/2018 and prepared by Ghazi Al Ali
Site Design Studios
A
23/02/2018
DRWG No. L02A
Building footprint as per DRWG No. A1202 Rev E, dated 10/04/2018 and prepared by Ghazi Al Ali
Site Design Studios
A
23/02/2018
DRWG No. L03A
Building footprint as per DRWG No. A1202 Rev E, dated 10/04/2018 and prepared by Ghazi Al Ali
Site Design Studios
A
23/02/2018
DRWG No. L04A
Site Design Studios
A
23/02/2018
DRWG No. SW02
SGC
B
18/04/2018
DRWG No. SW03
SGC
B
18/04/2018
DRWG No. SW04
SGC
B
18/04/2018
DRWG No. SW05
SGC
B
18/04/2018
DRWG No. SW06
SGC
B
18/04/2018
DRWG No. SW07
SGC
B
18/04/2018
DRWG No. SW08
SGC
B
18/04/2018
DRWG No. SW09
SGC
B
18/04/2018
DRWG No. SW10
SGC
B
18/04/2018
DRWG No. SW11
SGC
B
18/04/2018
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Alliance Geotechnical
-
16 March 2017
Noise Assessment
Acoustic Consulting Engineers
03
17 March 2017
Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report
Jacksons Nature Works
-
10 March 2017
Flood Study Report
Issue B
SGC
C
28/11/2017
BASIX Certificate Number 716050M_04
Greenworld Architectural Drafting
-
20 March 2018
Amended clause 4.6 (Height of Building)
Morphology Design Associates
-
-
The applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s.8.15 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
The Applicant’s clause 4.6 written request to vary the height control pursuant to clause 4.3 of the Parramatta LEP 2011 is upheld.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application Number 231/2017 for the for the demolition at 33-35 William Street Granville NSW 2142 (“the land”) of existing structures and for construction on the land of a six (6) storey residential flat building in reliance on State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 with two (2) basement levels including basement parking, and containing fifty (50) units comprising eleven (11) one-bedroom units, thirty four (34) two bed units and five (5) three bed units is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (700 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Zam Zam Developments Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1468
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1468
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Council's refusal to grant development approval was lawful. Key legal issues included whether the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws and policies, and whether the refusal was justified on the grounds of traffic congestion and environmental impact. The applicant argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and not based on proper consideration of the development's benefits and the applicant's submissions.
The court found that the Council had indeed erred in its consideration of the development application. It determined that the Council had failed to adequately address the applicant's mitigating measures for traffic and environmental impacts. The court held that the refusal of the development approval was not supported by the evidence and was therefore unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed the decision of the Cumberland Council and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court's decision underscores the importance of thorough and balanced consideration of all relevant factors in planning decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [4] 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.