Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: 41 Robey Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1541 Hearing dates: 29-30 October 2020 Date of orders: 9 November 2020 Decision date: 09 November 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No. 382/2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a boarding house development across two buildings, is approved, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
(3) The exhibits, other than exhibits 1, 6, A, B, C and D, are returned.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — boarding house development – compatibility with the character of the local area – side setbacks – internal amenity – amenity impacts on adjoining development – impact on the heritage significance of adjoining heritage items
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998
Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development
Cases Cited: Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council (2005) 141 LGERA 80; [2005] NSWLEC 191
Texts Cited: Building Code of Australia
Randwick Development Control Plan 2013
Category: Principal judgment Parties: 41 Robey Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
C McEwen SC (Applicant)
A Hudson (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/271126 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. 382/2019 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a boarding house development across two buildings (the proposal) at 41 Robey Street, Maroubra (the site) by Randwick City Council (the Council).
-
The appeal was subject to conciliation on 17 April 2020, in accordance with the provisions of s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). As agreement was not reached, the conciliation conference was terminated, pursuant to s 34(4) of the LEC Act.
-
Leave was granted by the Court on 27 October 2020 for the applicant to amend the application by relying on amended architectural and landscape plans (Ex C).
Issues
-
The Council’s contentions can be summarised as:
The design of the proposal is not compatible with the character of the local area.
The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.
The side setbacks are inadequate.
The proposal does not provide adequate residential amenity for occupants, because the boarding rooms are too narrow and the ceiling heights are less than 2.7m.
The proposal results in adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining property at 43 Robey Street, due to overshadowing.
The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjoining heritage item.
The proposal will establish an undesirable precedent in the locality.
The…
Continue reading 41 Robey Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- 41 Robey Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1541
- Case
- [2020] NSWLEC 1541
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue for determination was whether the Council's decision to refuse development consent was lawful, reasonable, and based on appropriate considerations. The developer contended that the Council failed to consider relevant environmental and planning policies, and that the reasons provided for refusal were inadequate and not supported by the evidence. The Council, on the other hand, argued that the proposed development would have significant adverse impacts on the character of the area and did not align with the local planning policies.
The Court found that the Council's decision was not based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning policies and environmental factors. The Court held that the Council failed to adequately address the applicant's submissions and evidence, and that the reasons provided for refusal were insufficient and did not demonstrate a proper application of the planning and environmental criteria. The Court concluded that the decision was unreasonable and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, with specific directions for the Council to consider the application in light of the Court's findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No. 382/2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a boarding house development across two buildings, is approved, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
(3) The exhibits, other than exhibits 1, 6, A, B, C and D, are returned.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.