Santos Architecture Pty Limited v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1274

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Santos Architecture Pty Limited v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1274 Hearing dates: 14 May 2021 Date of orders: 21 May 2021 Decision date: 21 May 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Horton C Decision: See orders at [27] Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – multi-dwelling housing development – R3 medium density residential zone – consolidation of lots of land – orders by consent of the parties Legislation Cited: Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.4, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 8.7, 8.15 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land, cl 7 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Santos Architecture Pty Limited (Applicant) Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Staunton (Applicant) M Bonanno (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors: Sattler & Associates (Applicant) Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/23443 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This Class 1 appeal concerns a development application brought before the Court under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal by Canterbury-Bankstown Council (the Respondent) of Development Application No DA-451/2019 seeking consent for the demolition of two existing dwellings and associated structures, and the construction of 8 x three-bedroom multi-dwelling housing development including one level of basement car parking containing 16 x residential parking spaces, 3 x visitor parking spaces and 1 x car wash bay and associated landscaping works at 18-22 Northcote Street, Canterbury (the site). 2. It is relevant to record here that the matter was listed for conciliation in accordance with s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) on 18 September 2020, at which I presided. As the parties were unable to reach agreement on all issues in dispute at the time, I terminated the conciliation conference and the parties sought a date for hearing. 3. The matter was listed before me under s 34(4)(b) of the LEC Act. On the eve of the hearing, the parties advised the Court that they had reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. 4. Accordingly, the parties by consent now seek the Court to dispose of the matter, on the basis of amendments made to the application, and in accordance with s 34(4)(b)(i) of the LEC Act. 5. Furthermore, the parties also consent to the Court relying upon what it saw during the onsite view, and upon the discussions had at the conciliation conference in accordance with s 34(12) of the LEC Act. 6. At the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant was granted leave to amend the application and rely upon the following amended plans and other documents contained in Exhibit B, subject to costs pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the EPA Act: * Amended architectural plans (Tab 4), amended landscape plans (Tab 5) and amended stormwater plans (Tab 6). * DA Design Review – Access Report prepared by Philip Chun Building Compliance dated 9 October 2020 (Tab 7). * Letter prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering dated 6 November 2020 (Tab 8). * Amended Acoustic Report by Acoustic Noise and Vibration Solutions dated 16 September 2020 (Tab 10). * Waste Management Statement (undated) (Tab 8). * Preliminary Site Investigation prepared by Geotechnique dated 10 June 2016 (Tab 13). * Detailed Site Investigation prepared by Geotechnique dated 9 October 2020 (Tab 12). * Further Contamination Assessment and Revised Remedial Action Plan prepared by Geotechnique dated 9 March 2021 (Tab 11). 1. The background facts to the matter as described by the Respondent are set out in the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed with the Court on 11 March 2020 (Exhibit 1). 2. The Respondent considers the amended plans and other documents listed at [6] to resolve the contentions set out in Exhibit 1.