Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Alco Electrics Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2014] NSWLEC 1223 Hearing dates: 23 September 2014 Decision date: 14 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: Appeal upheld in part
Catchwords: MODIFICATION: Condition of consent; Floor space ratio, rear setback Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012Cases Cited: Gann & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 157 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Alco Electrics Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant: Mr A Isaacs (Barrister)
Respondent: Ms C Morton (Solicitor)
Applicant: Boskovitz & Associates
Respondent: Sparke Helmore
File Number(s): 10523 of 2014
Judgment
COMMISSIONER: The applicant appeals Waverley Council's deemed refusal of modification application DA-618/2011/B for an extension to the rear of the first floor dwelling of an approved dual occupancy at 86 Blair Street, North Bondi (the site). The purpose of the proposed extension is to create a third bedroom.
The appeal, made under s 97AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act), commenced on site as a mandatory conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act).
At the commencement of the conciliation the parties and the Court heard from two nearby residents who had lodged written submissions opposing the proposal. Both objectors own properties to the rear of the site. One of the objectors made submissions on behalf of another neighbour who owns a property immediately adjoining the rear of the site. Their concerns are summarised as:
- Loss of privacy/ overlooking of private open space and primary living areas
- Visual impact - excessive bulk and scale
- Overdevelopment of the site
The site was viewed from the objectors' properties. The rear building alignment was noted on site.
As there was no agreement between the parties, the conciliation was terminated and the matter proceeded to a hearing in accordance with s 34AA(2)(b)(i) of the Court Act.
The site, locality and relevant background
The site is located on the northern side of Blair Street. Adjoining the site to the west is a two-storey red brick residential flat building over ground level parking; to the east is a two storey dual occupancy of subdivided semi-detached dwellings with garages at the street frontage. Nearby development ranges in style and age and is typically two to three storeys in height. To the rear are two storey semi-detached dwellings located over parking.
Relevant to some of the objectors' concerns, in 2011 the Land and Environment Court made orders in effect to restrain the unauthorised use of the premises as either 'backpackers' accommodation' or as a 'boarding house'.
Construction work is currently underway for alterations and additions to an existing dual occupancy dwelling on the site. The works were approved under development consent DA-618/2011, as modified by DA-618/2011/A.
Modification application DA-618/2011A was approved subject to (amended) condition 2(b) and (new) condition 2(k). Condition 2(k) is in the following terms:
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Alco Electrics Pty Ltd v Waverley Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWLEC 1223
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the legal framework governing development applications and the council's discretion in assessing such applications. It considered whether the council had adequately considered all relevant factors and whether the reasons provided for the refusal were sufficient and lawful. The court also assessed whether the council's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account significant aspects of the application. The reasoning of the court focused on the balance between the council's duty to protect the community and the applicant's right to have their development proposal fairly assessed.
The court found that the council had erred in its assessment by not properly considering certain aspects of the development application, and by making a decision that was not adequately supported by the evidence. The council's refusal was deemed to be based on an improper consideration of factors and a failure to follow the required procedures. Consequently, the court held that the council's decision was unlawful. The appeal was upheld in part, leading to the quashing of the council's decision to refuse the development application and the direction that the application be reconsidered in accordance with the law.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal upheld in part
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.