No Comments

No ‘Character of the Local Area’ in diverse neighbourhoods

Under clause 16A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, a consent authority must not consent to a development if the design is incompatible with the character of the local area.

In the recent decision of Louden Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1285 (Louden), clause 16A played a prominent role in Commissioner Gray’s judgement. In that case, the Council had refused the development, inter alia, because the development’s design did not match the local aesthetic. The Council relied on the argument that the setbacks and design of the proposal were inconsistent with other residential flat buildings in the local area.

However, Commissioner Gray rejected this argument in favour of the Applicant’s reliance on Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 (Project Venture). There, Roseth SC stated [at 22]: Compatibility is thus different from sameness. It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve.
Continue reading…

No Comments

3 Tree-Lessons from the Land & Environment Court

Trees can mean many things to many people, for the ancient Norse people Yggrasil “the giant tree of life” connected the heavens and the earth, for real estate agents in metropolitan Sydney it delivers a mystical extra $40K to the selling price, and for the ancient welsh druids – stationary lovers. This varied appreciation of trees also extends to the many and various Class 2 applications in the Land & Environment Court. One person’s tree delights, is another’s waking terror.

  1. Annoyance or Discomfort of the Third Kind

If your neighbour’s trees or hedges continue to deposit leaves and other detritus all over your property, the best solution maybe to forgo the Class 2 Application and pick up a rake instead – as the Court has found that Gaia’s garbage will not be enough to engage an application by an affected land owner pursuant to section 7 (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (Trees Act):
Continue reading…

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

Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Asbestos Waste) Bill 2018

On 24 October 2018, the New South Wales upper house introduced the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Asbestos Waste) Bill 2018 (the Bill) with the stated aim of ‘[making] clearer the Government is serious about protecting the environment of New South Wales and the health of its citizen’, as well as ‘provide greater deterrence against illegal dumping of asbestos waste’.

The current laws on illegal dumping, transporting, and recycling of asbestos waste

The current version of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (the Act) provides for prohibitions against unauthorised dumping and receiving of waste in general [Ss 143 & 144, of the Act]. This general prohibition is complimented by asbestos-related provisions within the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulations 2014 (NSW) (Waste Regulations), which detail the requirements for handling of asbestos waste. For example, the Waste Regulations requires the person delivering the asbestos waste to notify the owner of the landfill that will be receiving the asbestos waste [Clause 80(2), Waste Regulations], the occupier of the landfill site to cover up the disposed asbestos waste in certain manners [Clause 80(4), Ibid], the transportation of asbestos waste to follow certain regulatory requirements, including securing the asbestos materials securely during transport [Clause 78, Ibid] and wetting down the waste if the asbestos materials are contained soil [Clause 78(d), Ibid]. The Waste Regulations also expressly bans recycling and reusing asbestos materials [Clause 81, Ibid].
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

Sentencing Principles for Water Pollution Offences

BACKGROUND

On 7 and 8 March 2018, judgment was delivered in Environment Protection Authority v Ardent Leisure Ltd (ACN 104 529 106) [2018] NSWLEC 36 (Ardent) to impose a fine totalling $157,950 on Ardent Leisure Ltd (AL) for polluting Sydney Harbour after approximately 6000L of diesel fuel escaped into the waters from a fuel storage system at Rushcutters Bay marina.

AL was convicted with the following offences and penalty imposed:

  1. Section 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (POEO Act) for the pollution of waters in Rushcutters Bay (Water Pollution Offence) – Penalty $135,000.00;
  2. Clause 19(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulation 2014 (NSW) (UPSS Regulation) in relation to Ardent’s failure to include current ‘as-built’ drawing for the fuel storage system (UPSS Regulation Offence) – Penalty $22,950.00

A publication order for a notice of the offences was also made for the purposes of improving the effectiveness of general deterrence.
Continue reading…

No Comments

Powers of a Sydney District or Regional Planning Panel to “direct and control” a Council under the new amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in a Class 1 Appeal:

Recently the Land and Environment Court has considered the newly introduced provision of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which enables planning panels involved in application decisions to “direct and control” the Council involved.

In this landmark case, the Court found the Council was indeed subject to both the direction and control of the Planning Panel, but furthermore that when the application goes before the Court in order to enter into an agreement to solve proceedings, that the Panel also becomes joined as a party in this process.

The Decision in M.H Earthmoving Pty Ltd v Cootamundra-Gundagai Regional Council (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 101:

By way of a brief background, this case involved a Class 1 Development application to expand an existing landfill in the Cootamundra-Gundagai Local Government Area.

As per the old EPA Act, the development application was required to be heard at the time by the Southern Joint Regional Planning Panel (the JRPP Panel), and at the time the panel determined the application by way of refusal.  Upon this decision, the Applicant then filed an appeal with the LEC and the Planning Panel was informed as per the requirements under the EPA Act.
Continue reading…

No Comments

Commencement of the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code

On 6 July 2018, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP) will be amended to include the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code (Medium Density Code). The effect of the Medium Density Code is to expand the scope of what is considered ‘complying development’ under NSW legislation.

The amendments to the Codes SEPP are part of the NSW Government’s overall agenda to increase affordable housing within the State by streamlining the development consent process.

What is Complying Development?

Complying Development is development which can obtain development consent by having regard to and meeting specified predetermined development standards. The predetermined development standards include criteria such as minimum lot size, setbacks, building height and floor space ratio.

A development can only be complying development if it is permitted with consent within that zone. If it is permitted and meets the predetermined development standards, the proposed development can be approved by either Council or a qualified private certifier which issues a complying development certificate.
Continue reading…