Abstract Group Pty Ltd v Parramatta Council

[2004] NSWLEC 447

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Abstract Group Pty Ltd -v- Parramatta Council [2004] NSWLEC 447
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Abstract Group Pty Ltd RESPONDENT Parramatta Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10175 of 2004
CORAM:	Murrell C
KEY ISSUES:	Development Application :- multi-unit development - floor space ratio - setbacks - landscaping - building depth - height - overshadowing - stormwater - landscape
LEGISLATION CITED:	Parramatta Local Environmental Plan Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	23/07/02004
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	07/23/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr B Goldsmith, town planner GOLDSMITH PLANNING SERVICES PTY LTD RESPONDENT Mr P Marincowitz, solicitor SOLICITORS Phillips Fox

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

C Murrell

23 July 2004

10175 of 2004 Abstract Group Pty Ltd –v- Parramatta City Council

JUDGMENT

1 This matter has come before me this morning as consent orders. By way of background this matter has been case-managed by the the Court. Mr Marincowitz this morning, on behalf of the respondent council, has outlined the applicant's response by providing amended plan and additional information to the council and results of the conferencing that occurred via the case management and the Court-appointed expert for the arborist in terms of a report of the trees.

2 There were a number of issues identified by the council when the appeal was lodged however the amended plans as described by Mr Marincowitz now satisfy the concerns that council had previously identified.

3 I would like to say at the outset that this is a matter where the Court must comment that the process of negotiation/conferencing (and the fact that the council has co-operated in the process and the applicant has duly responded to the council’s concerns and comments) has provided for the matter to be resolved in a most amicable way. Furthermore at the end of the day it is the outcome in terms of what is built on the ground that is of prime concern to the Court but nonetheless in this particular case I must make mention of the fact that the process appears to be one that has resulted in achieving that desired outcome and the parties are to be congratulated.

4 The proposal is for a nine multi-unit development at the property known as 527 Woodville Road, Guildford. The subject site is zoned Residential 2B and the proposal conforms with the council’s controls in terms of the compliance table provided to the Court this morning. That is the floor space ratio of 0.6:1 two storey development and the set-backs, landscaping, building depth, floor to ceiling height and the NATHIS star rating are all complied with by the proposed amended development application.

5 There have been a number of amendments as I indicated which now make the development compliant and also have the effect of reducing any adverse impacts. The Court has been taken this morning in a detailed way to the letters of objection that were lodged against the development application when it was submitted to the council.

6 I am satisfied by the material that is now before me that the objectors’ concerns have been either addressed where they are well-founded and that the conditions of consent or the amended plans satisfy the concerns expressed in the well-founded objections.

7 The council has also provided evidence to the Court that the practice direction in terms of consent orders has been complied with and indeed the objectors have been personally phoned in that regard. Nobody availed themselves of the opportunity to appear before the Court this morning and the amended plans have been the process whereby many of the concerns have been dealt with.

8 The proposed development is one that is permissible with development consent in the zone. An acoustic report has been provided as have more detailed plans in terms of overshadowing, stormwater, and a landscape plan and I am satisfied that the proposed development is satisfactory and there would be no adverse impacts or unreasonable adverse impacts as a result of the proposed development, it being a development that is anticipated or contemplated by council’s Planning Controls and Guidelines.

9 As I said, I feel that the matter has been comprehensively dealt with by the parties and I have no reason as to why the consent orders handed up to me this morning should not be entered into. On the basis of the evidence before me the consent orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal in respect of the property known as 527 Woodville Road, Guilford, is upheld.

2. The development application submitted to Parramatta City Council, and as amended is determined by

the granting of consent subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A.

3. The exhibits except for Exhibits A, 3, 4 and 5 are returned.

4. There is no order as to costs.

_______________________