Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zoro Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWLEC 1566 Hearing dates: 18 September 2023 Date of orders: 27 September 2023 Decision date: 27 September 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The development consent DA127/06 for the construction of a new detached dwelling with double car hard stand, inclinator and landscaping works at 67 Seaforth Crescent, Seaforth, is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development consent DA127/06 as modified by the Court, is Annexure B.
(4) Exhibits 4 and 6 are returned, the remaining exhibits are retained.
Catchwords: APPEAL – modification application – scope of modification confined over the course of the appeal proceedings – parties agree contentions have been resolved
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.55, 8.9
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 100
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34AA
Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013
Cases Cited: Zoro Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2020] NSWLEC 1349
Texts Cited: Building Code of Australia
Manly Development Control Plan 2013
National Construction Code
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Zoro Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Parrino (Solicitor) (Applicant)
S Patterson (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/277514 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: A partially constructed building at 67 Seaforth Crescent, Seaforth, has stood largely undisturbed since the issue of a stop work order in early 2020. The applicant and owner of the land, Zoro Developments Pty Ltd (Zoro) seeks to modify a development consent that applies to the site, which will, in turn, allow works to be carried out to the building. Zoro lodged a modification application with Northern Beaches Council (the Council) on 20 April 2022. Following the expiry of the period after which a modification application is deemed to be refused, Zoro lodged these appeal proceedings, pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).
-
The proceedings were required to be listed for a conciliation conference in accordance with s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conciliation conference commenced on site on 14 March 2023. On that date, I made a determination the proceedings were not to continue to be dealt with under s 34AA(2). The proceedings were then listed by the Registrar for a court hearing on 18 September 2023.
-
The proposed modification is to the development consent (DA127/06) granted on 15 October 2007 for the construction of a new detached dwelling with double car hard stand, inclinator and landscaping. The modification application was amended prior to the hearing, and is now confined to changes to the inclinator landing and stair access on the western side of the dwelling, a proposal for a window on the western elevation in lieu of the door approved by the consent, and the introduction of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Zoro Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 1566
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the refusal of development consent was lawful, focusing on whether the consent was unreasonably refused. The appeal centred on the interpretation of relevant planning laws, the application of relevant policies, and the adequacy of reasons provided by the Council in its decision.
The court found that the Council's decision to refuse development consent was unreasonable. The court considered that the Council had failed to adequately address relevant policies and had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The court also held that the development consent should have been granted, subject to certain modifications. As a result, the court modified the terms of the development consent to align with the requirements of relevant planning laws and policies. The court's decision was grounded in a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal framework.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The development consent DA127/06 for the construction of a new detached dwelling with double car hard stand, inclinator and landscaping works at 67 Seaforth Crescent, Seaforth, is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development consent DA127/06 as modified by the Court, is Annexure B.
(4) Exhibits 4 and 6 are returned, the remaining exhibits are retained.
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.