Ritchie v Blacktown City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1474

Ritchie v Blacktown City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1474

Clause 17 of SEPP ARH did not require every dwelling in the approved development to be designated as affordable rental housing, because that construction was inconsistent with cl 13 and the wording of cl 17. However, where the power or dispensation under SEPP ARH is invoked, cl 17 mandatorily requires at least one dwelling to be designated as affordable rental housing and managed by a registered community housing provider. Because SEPP ARH was invoked separately for each dual occupancy component, and it would defeat the objects of SEPP ARH to treat separate developments as one merely because they were in one development application, one dwelling from each dual occupancy had to be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of a Modification Application Under S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Principal Judgment and Addendum Making Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; modification application granted in accordance with Annexure A conditions.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'state Environmental Planning Policy (affordable Rental Housing) 2009' 'dual Occupancies' 'affordable Rental Housing Conditions' 'subdivision' 'public Interest']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land and Environment' 'statutory Construction' 'affordable Rental Housing'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'state Environmental Planning Policy (affordable Rental Housing) 2009' 'dual Occupancies' 'affordable Rental Housing Conditions' 'subdivision' 'public Interest']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of a Modification Application Under S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Principal Judgment and Addendum Making Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether cl 17 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 required all four dwellings in two dual occupancies to be used for affordable rental housing and managed by a registered community housing provider.' 'Whether, if not all dwellings were required, at least one dwelling in each dual occupancy had to be designated as affordable rental housing.' 'Whether the development should be treated as one development or as separate components for the purposes of the SEPP ARH.' 'Whether public interest justified requiring all four dwellings to be designated as affordable rental housing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 17 of SEPP ARH did not require every dwelling in the approved development to be designated as affordable rental housing, because that construction was inconsistent with cl 13 and the wording of cl 17. However, where the power or dispensation under SEPP ARH is invoked, cl 17 mandatorily requires at least one dwelling to be designated as affordable rental housing and managed by a registered community housing provider. Because SEPP ARH was invoked separately for each dual occupancy component, and it would defeat the objects of SEPP ARH to treat separate developments as one merely because they were in one development application, one dwelling from each dual occupancy had to be...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; modification application granted in accordance with Annexure A conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'Modification Application MOD-19-00311 - to amend conditions 1.4.1, 4.8.1, 13.6.6.1, 13.6.6.3 and 16.4.1 of Development consent No. REV-18-0009 of DA-17-01123 dated 30 August 2018 in respect of Lot 2 DP 553399 known as 70 Portico Parade Toongabbie is granted in accordance with the...