Staldone Corporation Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2016] NSWLEC 1261

Staldone Corporation Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2016] NSWLEC 1261

Conditions 1 and 69 should be amended as proposed by the applicant because the stricter language ('strictly') in condition 1 is inconsistent with the flexibility allowed for minor changes post-approval, and the infrastructure works in condition 69 (replacement of kerb/gutter and widening of existing footpaths) do not reasonably relate to the impacts of this specific development beyond reinstatement and targeted upgrades. Section 94 contributions must be calculated by applying the cap per dwelling to both new dwellings and credits for demolished dwellings, per the Council's approach, harmonizing with precedent and the structure of the council's Contributions Plan and Ministerial Directions.

Parties
Applicant: Staldone Corporation Pty Ltd; Respondent: Lane Cove Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Modification Application / Judgment on Merits, Post Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; modification application granted with amended conditions
Legal Topics
Development Modification, Section 94 Contributions, Waste Management, Stormwater and Drainage, Compliance With Approved Plans, Footpath and Kerb and Guttering
Planning and Environment Law Development Modification Section 94 Contributions Waste Management Stormwater and Drainage Compliance With Approved Plans Footpath and Kerb and Guttering

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Staldone Corporation Pty Ltd

Applicant

Lane Cove Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Modification Application / Judgment on Merits, Post Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed modifications result in substantially the same development as originally approved
  2. 2 Whether deletion of the word 'strictly' from condition 1 is appropriate
  3. 3 How section 94 contributions should be calculated in view of the Ministerial Direction capping per dwelling contributions

Ratio Decidendi

Conditions 1 and 69 should be amended as proposed by the applicant because the stricter language ('strictly') in condition 1 is inconsistent with the flexibility allowed for minor changes post-approval, and the infrastructure works in condition 69 (replacement of kerb/gutter and widening of existing footpaths) do not reasonably relate to the impacts of this specific development beyond reinstatement and targeted upgrades. Section 94 contributions must be calculated by applying the cap per dwelling to both new dwellings and credits for demolished dwellings, per the Council's approach, harmonizing with precedent and the structure of the council's Contributions Plan and Ministerial Directions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; modification application granted with amended conditions

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The application to modify Development Consent No D202/14 is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure A.