Baker Kavanagh Architects Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1003

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Baker Kavanagh Architects Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1003 Hearing dates: 2-3 December 2013 Decision date: 14 January 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: See paragraph 77 Catchwords: Development Application, Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007; State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land; Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012; Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005; Texts Cited: Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Baker Kavanagh Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant)

Sydney City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Ms S Duggan SC (Applicant)

Ms A Pearman (Respondent) Solicitors Mr M Sonter Gadens Lawyers (Applicant)

Mr P Kapetas Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) File Number(s): 10507 of 2013

Judgment 1Baker Kavanagh Architects Pty Ltd is appealing the deemed refusal of Development Application D/2013/407 lodged with Sydney City Council on 2 April 2013 seeking consent to demolish an existing two storey commercial building and remove landscaping elements including a planter box, construct a three storey shop top housing development and three lot subdivision including the dedication of land for road widening. The plans of the proposal have been amended following a conciliation conference held under s34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Act) before another Commissioner of this Court with the amended plans addressing a number of the council's initial contentions. 2The remaining contentions in the case are the adequacy of waste management storage and servicing; the acceptability of the design of the development including safety and social dimensions; non-compliance with planning controls, in particular floor space ratio, building height and deep soil planting; adequacy of plans and whether the proposal is in the public interest. The council did not press a contention regarding noise impacts. 3Whilst not raised in the council's contentions, the issue of the dedication of land and whether the value of that land should be offset against s94 contributions also arose in response to draft conditions of consent filed by the council.