Zam Zam Developments Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1468


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) 2009
Category: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

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. 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

-

-

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. 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)

Details
AGLC
Zam Zam Developments Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1468
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1468
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Zam Zam Developments Pty Ltd versus Cumberland Council, the dispute before the court concerned an application for a development approval for a mixed-use development project in Sydney. The applicant, Zam Zam Developments, sought to develop the site into a mixed-use facility including retail, hospitality, and residential components. Cumberland Council opposed the development on various grounds, including concerns over traffic congestion and the impact on the local environment.

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.