Drumalbyn B Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council

1. The changes between the as filed modification application and the amended application primarily result in a reduction of the proposed expansion of Unit 7.
2. Accompanying the submitted s 34 agreement, the parties have provided a jurisdictional statement setting out how the proposal has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements and other matters.
3. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision if the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
4. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act to modify the development consent.

Jurisdictional Prerequisites

1. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied. With consideration of the agreed jurisdictional note and documentation within the Class 1 Application, I am satisfied that the parties' decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. This is set out below.
2. I am satisfied that owners consent accompanied the modification application.
3. I have considered the documentation within the amended application and the parties' agreed detailed jurisdictional statement at [6] - [16]. I accept that the proposed modifications to the approved seniors living development, primarily being the reconfiguration and increased size of Unit 7, will be substantially the same as the original development (s 4.55(2)(a) of the EPA Act).
4. With respect to s 4.55(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the EPA Act, the modification application was notified between 24 January 2024 and 8 February 2024. Nine unique objections were received. At the s 34 conciliation conference, one objector (through their representative) orally explained their objections from their property. The parties have advised the Court that the issues raised from the objections have been considered. I accept the parties' agreement that these provisions have been met.
5. With respect to s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act and the reasons for granting consent, in reviewing the parties' jurisdictional statement and RNB Property Group, the amended application for an increase in size of Unit 7 with associated works does not offend the reasons for the grant of consent.
6. Further, I accept that the parties have adequately considered s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act as set out in the agreed jurisdictional statement, Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by GSA Planning dated 13 November 2023 (as filed) and 9 May 2024 (further amended) and documentation accompanying the modification application (including the amended application). The following is acknowledged: 1. In the original approval, Building B was approved at 8.99m and complied with cl 4.3 height of buildings of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 (WLEP). Building B as modified is 9.92m, above the 9.5m permitted by cl 4.3. I accept the parties' agreement that the additional increase in height is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and zone in this instance. 2. The parties agree that the proposed increase in gross floor area from 1536m2 to 1595.01m2 meets the objectives of cl 4.4 floor space ratio of the WLEP, as the additional bulk will not overshadow adjoining properties, does not create privacy concerns and does not block any views. 3. The amended application was supported by a Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Zoltan Kovacs Architect dated 2 November 2023 (HIS). I accept that cl 5.10 of the WLEP has been considered by the parties' heritage experts. 4. The parties agree that the modifications do not result in further earthworks or tree removal (cll 6.2 and 6.9 of WLEP). 5. Pursuant to s 4.2, State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 (Sustainable SEPP) does not apply to the amended application. The Sustainable SEPP also repealed State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, effective from 1 October 2023. Notwithstanding, the amended application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate (A1747210). 6. The amended application is accompanied by an amended Design Statement by a qualified registered architect (Mr Hanson, registration number 6739) as required by s 102 of the EPA Reg that addresses s 147 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.
7. The parties agree and I accept that the provisions required to be addressed by ss 4.55(2) and 4.15 of the EPA Act have been met as evidenced in the documentation accompanying the Class 1 appeal, amended application, and supported by the jurisdictional statement.

Conclusion

1. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
2. I have considered the jurisdictional prerequisites and I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the agreement of the parties is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
3. As the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

Orders:

1. The Court orders: 1. The modification application pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is approved. 2. Development consent DA416/2021/1 granted by the Land and Environment Court on 11 January 2023 is modified in the terms listed in Annexure A. 3. Development consent DA416/2021/1 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 June 2024

1. The changes between the as filed modification application and the amended application primarily result in a reduction of the proposed expansion of Unit 7.
2. Accompanying the submitted s 34 agreement, the parties have provided a jurisdictional statement setting out how the proposal has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements and other matters.
3. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision if the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
4. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act to modify the development consent.

1. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied. With consideration of the agreed jurisdictional note and documentation within the Class 1 Application, I am satisfied that the parties' decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. This is set out below.
2. I am satisfied that owners consent accompanied the modification application.
3. I have considered the documentation within the amended application and the parties' agreed detailed jurisdictional statement at [6] - [16]. I accept that the proposed modifications to the approved seniors living development, primarily being the reconfiguration and increased size of Unit 7, will be substantially the same as the original development (s 4.55(2)(a) of the EPA Act).
4. With respect to s 4.55(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the EPA Act, the modification application was notified between 24 January 2024 and 8 February 2024. Nine unique objections were received. At the s 34 conciliation conference, one objector (through their representative) orally explained their objections from their property. The parties have advised the Court that the issues raised from the objections have been considered. I accept the parties' agreement that these provisions have been met.
5. With respect to s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act and the reasons for granting consent, in reviewing the parties' jurisdictional statement and RNB Property Group, the amended application for an increase in size of Unit 7 with associated works does not offend the reasons for the grant of consent.
6. Further, I accept that the parties have adequately considered s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act as set out in the agreed jurisdictional statement, Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by GSA Planning dated 13 November 2023 (as filed) and 9 May 2024 (further amended) and documentation accompanying the modification application (including the amended application). The following is acknowledged:

(1) In the original approval, Building B was approved at 8.99m and complied with cl 4.3 height of buildings of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 (WLEP). Building B as modified is 9.92m, above the 9.5m permitted by cl 4.3. I accept the parties' agreement that the additional increase in height is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and zone in this instance.

(2) The parties agree that the proposed increase in gross floor area from 1536m2 to 1595.01m2 meets the objectives of cl 4.4 floor space ratio of the WLEP, as the additional bulk will not overshadow adjoining properties, does not create privacy concerns and does not block any views.

(3) The amended application was supported by a Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Zoltan Kovacs Architect dated 2 November 2023 (HIS). I accept that cl 5.10 of the WLEP has been considered by the parties' heritage experts.

(4) The parties agree that the modifications do not result in further earthworks or tree removal (cll 6.2 and 6.9 of WLEP).

(5) Pursuant to s 4.2, State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 (Sustainable SEPP) does not apply to the amended application. The Sustainable SEPP also repealed State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, effective from 1 October 2023. Notwithstanding, the amended application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate (A1747210).

(6) The amended application is accompanied by an amended Design Statement by a qualified registered architect (Mr Hanson, registration number 6739) as required by s 102 of the EPA Reg that addresses s 147 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.

1. The parties agree and I accept that the provisions required to be addressed by ss 4.55(2) and 4.15 of the EPA Act have been met as evidenced in the documentation accompanying the Class 1 appeal, amended application, and supported by the jurisdictional statement.

1. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
2. I have considered the jurisdictional prerequisites and I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the agreement of the parties is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
3. As the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

(1) The modification application pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is approved.

(2) Development consent DA416/2021/1 granted by the Land and Environment Court on 11 January 2023 is modified in the terms listed in Annexure A.

(3) Development consent DA416/2021/1 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

Annexure A

Annexure B