Admark Constructions Pty Ltd v Camden Council - [2010] NSWLEC 1005

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Admark Constructions Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2010] NSWLEC 1005

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Admark Constructions Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
Camden Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 10575 of 2006 and 10576 of 2006

CORAM: Hussey C

KEY ISSUES: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :- Strata subdivision of multi housing units, live/work unit, studio apartment, parking and private open space amenity

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Camden Local Environmental Plan 47

CASES CITED: Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472
Carstens v Pittwater Council [1999] NSWLEC 249
Goldin & Anor v Minister for Transport Administering the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act 1995 [2002]] NSWLEC 75

DATES OF HEARING: 14 December 2009

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
12 January 2010

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr M Mantei (solicitor)
SOLICITOR
Planning Law Solutions Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
Mr S Griffiths (solicitor)
SOLICITOR
Pikes Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

12 January 2010

10575 of 2009 Admark Constructions Pty Ltd v Camden
10576 of 2009 Council
JUDGMENT

1 These proceedings involve 2 separate appeals against council’s refusal of development applications in respect of Nos 232 & 234 Mount Annan Drive, Mount Annan. The parties agreed to the appeals being heard concurrently and they involve:

2 Both of these properties have been recently developed as part of the Mt Annan master plan. They are located in relatively close proximity to a small neighbourhood centre and were apparently created to provide for a variety of lifestyles in terms of dwelling types and working opportunities.

3 The issues identified for the appeal are summarised as:

The sites

4 No 234; This site is described as Lot 9 in DP 1111684 and has an area of 290 sq m and a frontage of 10m to Mt Annan Drive. It backs onto and has access to Adriana Lane. There is a 0.9m wide easement along the western boundary, which is for common access use.

5 A 2–storey “live/work” dwelling has been constructed on this site. On the upper level there are 2 bedrooms, en–suite, bathroom and combined kitchen/living room. It has a 1.7m x 3.5m balcony off the living room.

6 At the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Admark Constructions Pty Ltd v Camden Council

Details

AGLC: Admark Constructions Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2010] NSWLEC 1005
Case: [2010] NSWLEC 1005
Decision Date: 12 January 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Admark Constructions Pty Ltd has appealed against Camden Council's refusal to approve two separate strata subdivision applications for properties located at 232 and 234 Mount Annan Drive, Mount Annan. The appeal involves the refusal to approve a strata subdivision of a live/work unit into a two-bedroom residential unit and a commercial unit at 234 Mount Annan Drive and a strata subdivision of a dwelling and studio into two residential lots at 232 Mount Annan Drive. Both properties are part of the Mt Annan master plan, which was developed to provide for a variety of lifestyles and working opportunities. The Land and Environment Court was required to decide whether the proposed developments were permissible, in accordance with the Tallowood Place Masterplan, if multi-unit housing was permitted on the sites, if there would be adequate parking and private open space, and whether the public interest would be served. The Court also had to determine if the precedent set by previous subdivision applications would have an objectionable impact on the area. The Court found that the proposed developments were not permissible as they would result in a change of characterisation of the properties and would not comply with the master plan. Additionally, the Court found that the developments would result in inadequate parking and private open space, which would diminish the amenity of the area. The Court also found that the precedent set by previous subdivision applications would have an objectionable impact on the area and would thwart the intent of the master plan for the neighbourhood centre. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeals and refused the development applications.

Orders