Lippmann Partnership Pty Ltd v Canterbury – Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1601

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lippmann Partnership Pty Ltd v Canterbury – Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1601 Hearing dates: 16 October 2017 Date of orders: 09 February 2018 Decision date: 27 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: Orders at [52] Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL: against refusal of mixed use development – amended plans – agreement of the experts – site contamination – certainty of remediation Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land Cases Cited: Moorebank Recyclers Pty Ltd v Benedict Industries Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 40 Weal v Bathurst City Council & Anor [2000] NSWCA 88 Young and Anor v Gosford City Council [2001] NSWLEC 191 Marinkovic v Rockdale City Council [2007] NSWLEC 71 Texts Cited: "Managing land contamination planning guidelines: SEPP 55 – remediation of land", NSW, 1998 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lippmann Partnership Pty Ltd (Applicant) Canterbury – Bankstown Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr. S Nash (Applicant) Ms S Puckeridge (Respondent)

Solicitors: Project Lawyers (Applicant) Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/377470 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This appeal has been lodged in response to the deemed refusal by Canterbury Bankstown Council of consent for a proposed mixed use development. The applicant seeks consent for three retail spaces on the ground floor, sixty-seven residential apartments, and two levels of basement parking. The development is proposed at 386, 396 and 398 Beamish Street, Campsie. 2. Following the termination of the conciliation the applicant made amendments to the proposed development. The applicant was granted leave by the Court to rely on amended plans and documentation in September 2017. These plans entail the following main changes: 1. Deletion of Level six of the proposal, 2. Deletion of the Small Office Home Office (SOHO) apartments, 3. reduction in the number and configuration of the retail, commercial and residential units from 87 to 71 to be as follows: 1. 3 retail units 2. 1 commercial unit 3. 4 three bedroom residential units 4. 34 two bedroom residential units 5. 17 one bedroom + study residential units 6. 12 one bedroom residential units 1. reduction in floor to floor heights proposed, and 2. introduction of sliding roof lights.3 1. On the basis of the plans, documentation before the Court and amendments proposed by the applicant during the course of the hearing, the Council no longer presses that the application should be refused.