Landmark Group Australia Pty Limited v Holroyd City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1071

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Landmark Group Australia Pty Limited v Holroyd City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1071 Hearing dates: 25-27 February 2015 Decision date: 27 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: Staged Development Application: height of buildings, building orientation and amenity, non-compliance with Masterplan, building separation, impact on adjoining properties. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land; Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013; Water Management Act 2000; 32 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2006; State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development Cases Cited: Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827; Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167; Botany Bay City Council v Premier Customs Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 226 Texts Cited: Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013; Residential Flat Design Code Category: Principal judgment Parties: Landmark Group Australia Pty Limited (Applicant)

Holroyd City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Galasso SC (Applicant)

Solicitors: Mr S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant) Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 10728 of 2014

Judgment 1. Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd (Landmark) lodged Development Application No 2014/133/1 with Holroyd City Council on 11 April 2014 seeking consent to a Stage 1 Masterplan for building footprints and envelopes for 6 residential buildings, basement parking, road network and open spaces and allocation of gross floor area across the site at Nos 1-11 Neil Street, Merrylands. 2. The application was lodged as a staged development application pursuant to the provisions of s83B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&AAct). 3. The application had not been determined within the prescribed period and Landmark is appealing its deemed refusal.