No Comments

Section 34 Conciliation Conferences – Requirement for Reasons

A recent development consented to by a Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court during a Court mandated section 34 conference has been set aside by the Court of Appeal due to the fact that the Commissioner failed to give proper and adequate reasons for their decision. The Commissioner further failed to give proper reasons with respect to her satisfaction as to the legal perquisites to their power to grant the consent.

Huajun Investments Pty Ltd filed a class 1 appeal against City of Canada Bay Council’s deemed refusal of their DA which sough to demolish pre-existing structures on the DA site and replace it with an 8 storey-residential flat building.

After being sat down for a section 34 conference pursuant to section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (“the Act”) , The Commissioner overseeing the matter granted development consent in accordance with the agreed terms under section 34(3) of the Act. Section 34(3) states that once an agreement is reached, the Commissioner must:
Continue reading…

No Comments

Is the need for a neutral or better outcome a requirement for success with respect to clause 4.6?

In a recent decision in the Land and Environment Court (LEC), the Court has given further clarification to the type of consideration that needs to be given to clause 4.6 of the standard instrument LEP.

The significant decision was given in the case Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 where Preston CJ clarified the appropriate approach to the consideration of clause 4.6. The importance of this judgment is that a clause 4.6 submission does not require developments which do not comply with the applicable development standard to have a neutral or better environmental planning outcome than a development that does not.

By way of background – a “Clause 4.6” in the standard instrument LEP which permits a consent authority to grant development consent for a development that would contravene a development standard, where the consent authority is satisfied of the following two standards:

  1. a written request from the applicant adequately demonstrating that the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there is sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention; and
  2. Continue reading…

No Comments

Recent changes to the planning principles in relation to brothel

Background

On the 31 March 2017, the NSW Land and Environment Court dismissed an appeal to modify the hours of operation for an existing brothel in Liverpool and revised the planning principle of Martyn v Hornsby Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 614.

Land and Environment Court Facts

The applicant sought to modify a condition of a development consent granted by the Liverpool City Council (the Council) in 1998. This modification would have extended the operating hours of the brothel.

The Council refused the application on the basis that the proposed “extended hours are not compatible with surrounding areas”, and “would give rise to unacceptable social impacts in the immediate locality”. Furthermore, the applicant “has not demonstrated a satisfactory justification for the proposed extended hours”.

Residents, objectors and other commercial operators in the area provided evidence in opposition of the extended hours.

Land and Environment Court Decision

The brothel was located in a B3 Commercial Core Zone under the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LEP 2008). Its use was characterised as a ‘sex services premises’, which was prohibited.
Continue reading…