GTAA P/L v South Sydney City Council

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2001-08-23|Before: Bignold J, Sheahan J, Gtaa P

The Applicant's Counsel also has drawn attention to the fact that the Council's consultant planner Mr Blythe, in his report which has been tendered in evidence, also appears to have accepted the legitimacy of applying the bonus incentive provision to the floor space ratio control.

The Council's Solicitor, in his competing argument, has submitted that the views contained in the Council's planning staff appraisal of the matter, and the views of Mr Blythe as to the availability of the bonus floor space incentive, in truth are not determinative of the proper interpretation of the text of the DCP. Without intending any discourtesy to the planners who have expressed their views, that submission is undoubtedly correct. The proper meaning of the DCP is a matter for the Court's determination.

I have come to the conclusion that the words of the text are not capable of supporting the construction urged upon me on behalf of the Applicant. Even if the relevant controls were to be interpreted in isolation from other provisions of the DCP there would, in my view, be insuperable difficulty in interpreting the text in a manner that would enable the proposed development, by virtue of its own character or type, to qualify for the bonus incentive provision, unless it and the development site provided the requisite facilities or possessed the requisite characteristics, enumerated in the text.

The words, "works or improvements", are undoubtedly wide as Counsel for the Applicant has properly submitted, but they are governed by the adjective, "other", which indicates that there are considerations of context which would narrow the relevant words, and those considerations are that the other works or improvements are of a kind as are mentioned in the preceding four dot points in the provision.

The question, however, is considerably clarified by aid of reference (strongly relied upon by the Council's Solicitor) to the provisions of Part C of the DCP dealing with the subject of "public domain", a term that is defined with its express objectives stated, at p 23 and following of the DCP.

Significantly, the text of Part C dealing with "public domain" under the heading, "Implementation", at p 27 and following, deals specifically, inter alia with the question of "floor space ratio bonus incentives" when it provides:

Council may provide floor space incentives to developers through negotiations during the development application process for the provision of significant additional public spaces or other material benefits to the community in accordance with the initiatives outlined in this plan.

It then states the provision of the bonus floor space incentive that might be applicable to development sites and it then quotes the precise language of the text at p 81 of the DCP dealing with bonus floor space incentive (that I have earlier recited).

It is apparent from consideration of the text of Part C, and in particular that part of it dealing with Precinct 11 "Western Districts Public Domain Plan" in which is situate the development site, that no "public domain works" are identified on the development site or indeed anywhere else in Dick Street.

Accordingly, the interpretation of the floor space ratio controls that I have adopted is confirmed by the text of the DCP dealing with "public domain" set out in Part C of the document, which confirms the interpretation that I have adopted.

In the circumstances, and on the common facts, I accordingly hold that, properly construed, the bonus floor space provisions contained in Part E of the DCP are not available in the case of the present development application. BAIRD: In light of your Honour's ruling, I would make an application for an adjournment for a period of time to enable the Applicant to then reassess the matters in light of your Honour's judgment on that point. I can address, if your Honour so desires.

HIS HONOUR: No I understand. You foreshadowed that application before lunch Mr Baird. I don't, at this stage, require you to elaborate. Mr Green, no objection?

GREEN: No your Honour. I don't have instructions from the Council officers here today but we don't want to put any matter with respect to that at this stage.

HIS HONOUR: I think that fairness would require that the Applicant be given an opportunity to reassess his position in this development appeal. Obviously I have made it clear that the ruling doesn't mean that it is legally impossible for consent to be granted. I am sure Mr Baird will make that very clear to his clients, but the ruling which has been adverse to the case put by the Applicant, clearly means that the Applicant has to consider its position in the light of that ruling. If it wishes to proceed with its case, it now realises that it has to satisfy the Court that the exceedence of the floor space ratio starts from whatever it is, minus 1.5 to 1 and not 1.75 to 1 for example. So that obviously is a matter that the Applicant will need to get some advice on, both (no doubt legal) and technical and it should have that opportunity. I will order the transcript of my judgement so that it will be published in written form.

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.

CITATION : GTAA P/L v South Sydney City Council [2001] NSWLEC 213 APPLICANT: GTAA P/L PARTIES : RESPONDENT: South Sydney City Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10105 of 2001 CORAM: Bignold J KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- meaning of floor space ratio controls in DCP - Determination of question of law as a preliminary matter. LEGISLATION CITED: South Sydney Development Control Plan 1997 CASES CITED: Gill v Donald Humberstone and Co Ltd (1963) 1 WLR 929· Hecar Investments No 6 Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie Council (1984) 53 LGRA 322 DATES OF HEARING: 23 August 2001 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 08/23/2001

He has also helpfully referred to a decision recently given of Sheahan J in a case Williams v Blue Mountains City Council [2001] NSWLEC 73 where his Honour was asked to determine whether a pond was capable of being the subject of a building certificate issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (16 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)

Cited By (3)