Flip Out - Trampoline Arena Trading Pty Limited v Penrith City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1229

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Flip Out - Trampoline Arena Trading Pty Limited v Penrith City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1229 Hearing dates: 25 - 26 November 2013 Decision date: 28 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: In matter No. 10804 of 2013 see para 49. In matter No. 10805 of 2013 the appeal is upheld in part. Catchwords: Development application - Order - Building occupied without consent; fire safety Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010; Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Texts Cited: Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Flip Out - Trampoline Arena Trading Pty Limited (Applicant)

Penrith City Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr A Pickles (Applicant)

Mr M Seymour (Respondent) Mr J Grassi Joseph Grassi & Associates

Ms J Wauchope Gadens File Number(s): 10804 of 2013 10805 of 2013

Judgment 1Flip Out Trampoline Arena Trading Pty Ltd (Flipout) had occupied a former car sales yard premises at 80 to 82 Mulgoa Rd Jamisontown (site) as a recreation facility. It had not obtained development consent from the Council prior to its occupation of the site. In response to notices issued by the Council, Flipout lodged Development Application DA13/0441 seeking consent to use the site as an indoor recreation facility. Penrith City Council refused consent and FlipOut is appealing that decision. (Matter No. 10804 of 2013) The Council has also issued an Emergency Order No. 1 under the provisions of s121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) requiring the cessation of use of the site because consent had not been obtained and its concerns in relation to public safety, in particular, fire safety. That Order is also the subject of an appeal, Matter No 10805 of 2013. 2The proceedings, including an associated Class 4 application have been expedited by the Court. The parties agreed that the Class 1 matters be heard concurrently with evidence in one being evidence in the other.