Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Holroyd City Council [2004] NSWLEC 418

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Holroyd City Council [2004] NSWLEC 418 APPLICANT Aldi Foods Pty Limited PARTIES : RESPONDENT Holroyd City Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10012 of 2004 CORAM: Talbot J KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- inconsistency with Master Plan - whether time-limited consent appropriate LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 96 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 23/07/2004 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/30/2004

APPLICANT Mr S B Austin QC with Mr P R Clay (Barrister) SOLICITORS Brophy Bridge & Mirow LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Ms J M Jagot (Barrister) SOLICITORS McKees

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Talbot J

Friday, 30 July 2004

10012 of 2004 Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Holroyd City Council

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: In an interim judgment dated 24 May 2004 ("the interim judgment"), the Court granted the applicant leave to rely on revised plans. On 2 June 2004, the Court granted the applicant leave to rely on further amended plans, in order to allow it to respond to the planning principles established in the interim judgment. The applicant submitted amended plans dated 16 June 2004. 2 In the period between the interim judgment and the final hearing date on 23 July 2004, Holroyd City Council ("the council") adopted the Development Control Plan ("DCP") containing the Neil Street Precinct Master Plan ("the Master Plan"), subject to the making of the new Local Environmental Plan ("LEP"). In addition, the council reconsidered its position in relation to the application. It wrote to the applicant suggesting two options for developing the site. The options did not change the supermarket building, however, they considerably reduced the extent of the parking deck. The options relied on a time-limited consent of 10 years. Presumably, the applicant's acceptance of either option would have resulted in the parties' seeking consent orders from the Court. In any event, the applicant rejected both options as being commercially unviable. Thus, the only proposal before the Court is the amended set of drawings of 16 June 2004.