Angolet Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council

Link copied
Case Copied 44 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Angolet Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2023] NSWLEC 1346
Hearing dates: 6, 7 February and 14 April 2023
Date of orders: 05 July 2023
Decision date: 05 July 2023
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Modification application DA/52083/2017/4 seeking consent for alterations and additions to the approved development at 5-7 Church Street, Terrigal (Lots 19 and 20 in DP 7861) principally by the addition of a new level (sixth storey), containing a single penthouse apartment and alterations to the approved terraces on Level 5 is determined by the way of refusal.

(3) Exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 2, A, C, D.

Catchwords:

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – Additional floor to approved shop top housing development –the development as modified is substantially the same as the development approved –the view impacts arising from the modification are unacceptable – application should be refused on merit – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.55, 8.2, 8.9

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022, cl 1.8A

Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014, cll 4.3, 4.4, 4.6

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

Cases Cited:

Feldkirchen Pty Ltd v Development Implementation Pty Ltd (2022) LGERA 114; [2022] NSWCA 227

Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298; [1999] NSWLEC 280

North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd [1998] NSWSC 163

Vacik Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [1992] NSWLEC 8

Texts Cited:

Gosford Development Control Plan 2013

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Angolet Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Natva Investments Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
P Tomasetti SC (First and Second Applicant)
H Irish (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Solomon Tudehope Solicitors (First and Second Applicant)
McCullough Robertson (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/135714
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: The Applicants, Angolet Pty Ltd and Natva Investments Pty Ltd are the owners of two adjoining lots known as 5 - 7 Church Street, Terrigal (Lots 19 and 20 in DP 7861). The subject site is currently a construction site following the approval and commencement of development consent DA/52083/2017 (the original consent) which granted consent for the erection of a five-storey shop top housing development. That consent has subsequently been modified by the Applicants and the current proceedings relate to DA/52083/2017/4 (the modification application) which seeks the following modifications:

  • Addition of a new level (sixth storey), containing a single penthouse apartment (195m² of gross floor area (GFA));

  • Increase in the number of units from 12 (the original consent) to 13;

  • Enlargement of the size of the terraces on Level 5 and a subsequent reduction of approved setbacks as follows:

  • Church Street boundary setback reduced by 1.7m,

  • Hudson Lane setback reduced by 1.1m,

  • North west side boundary reduced by 0.6m,

  • South east side boundary reduced by 0.6m.

  • Increase in the approved maximum building height of the proposed roof from RL…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Angolet Pty Ltd v Central Coast 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] NSWLEC 1346
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Angolet Pty Ltd appealed against the refusal of the Central Coast Council to approve a modification to an approved development. The modification, if approved, would have allowed the addition of a sixth storey to an existing development at 5-7 Church Street, Terrigal, comprising a single penthouse apartment and alterations to the approved terraces on Level 5. The Council's refusal was based on its assessment that the proposed modifications did not comply with the relevant planning scheme and development control regulations. Angolet Pty Ltd sought to challenge the Council's decision on the basis that it was unreasonable, and that the Council had failed to properly consider relevant planning policies and the impact of the proposed modifications on the character of the area. The legal issues before the court included whether the Council's decision to refuse the modification application was unreasonable, whether the Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and the impact of the proposed modifications, and whether the Court should allow the appeal or dismiss it. The Court held that the Council's decision was not unreasonable, and that the Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and the impact of the proposed modifications. The Court found that the proposed modifications would have a significant impact on the character of the area, and that the Council had properly exercised its discretion in refusing the application. The Court dismissed the appeal and determined the modification application by way of refusal. The Court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the relevant planning policies, and the Court held that the Council's decision was not flawed by any error of law or procedural unfairness.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Modification application DA/52083/2017/4 seeking consent for alterations and additions to the approved development at 5-7 Church Street, Terrigal (Lots 19 and 20 in DP 7861) principally by the addition of a new level (sixth storey), containing a single penthouse apartment and alterations to the approved terraces on Level 5 is determined by the way of refusal.

(3) Exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 2, A, C, D.

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.