Toplace Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2020] NSWLEC 1222

Toplace Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2020] NSWLEC 1222

The Court was not satisfied that the proposed modification to condition 28 was of minimal environmental impact. Reliance on the Reachdaze modification was insufficient because that consent concerned a different site, development, concept consent and VPA. The traffic evidence before the Court showed that occupation of Building A without the intersection upgrade could cause the existing Epsom Road and Link Road intersection to operate unsatisfactorily, and the applicant's modelling did not adequately assess traffic queues, the Rosebery Avenue junction, pedestrian demand, or pedestrian and cyclist safety. The existence of an obligation on another developer to carry out the works did not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of a Modification Application Under S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Hearing and Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; modification application refused.
Legal Topics
['modification Application Under S 4.55(1 A)' 'minimal Environmental Impact' 'occupation Certificate Condition' 'intersection Upgrade' 'concept Consent Consistency']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent Modification' 'traffic and Road Impacts'] ['modification Application Under S 4.55(1 A)' 'minimal Environmental Impact' 'occupation Certificate Condition' 'intersection Upgrade' 'concept Consent Consistency']

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 Deemed Refusal of a Modification Application Under S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Hearing and Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed modification to condition 28 was of minimal environmental impact for the purposes of s 4.55(1A)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the proposed modification would result in development substantially the same as the development originally approved under s 4.55(1A)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether modifying condition 28 would be inconsistent with the concept consent and engage s 4.24(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that the proposed modification to condition 28 was of minimal environmental impact. Reliance on the Reachdaze modification was insufficient because that consent concerned a different site, development, concept consent and VPA. The traffic evidence before the Court showed that occupation of Building A without the intersection upgrade could cause the existing Epsom Road and Link Road intersection to operate unsatisfactorily, and the applicant's modelling did not adequately assess traffic queues, the Rosebery Avenue junction, pedestrian demand, or pedestrian and cyclist safety. The existence of an obligation on another developer to carry out the works did not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; modification application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The modification application to amend the wording of condition 28 of development consent D/2015/624 concerning 67-77 Epsom Road, Rosebery, is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits D and 6.']