Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Camuglia v North Sydney Council [2021] NSWLEC 1588 Hearing dates: 16-17 September 2021 Date of orders: 11 October 2021 Decision date: 11 October 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Horton C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent No. DA55/19 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent No. DA55/19/2 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.
(4) All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits A, B, F, H, J and 4.
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – residential apartment development – residential flat building – whether condition should be deleted – assessment of view loss – vertical transportation systems – car lift
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 4.55
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 121B
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 39
North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013, cl 4.3
Cases Cited: 1643 Pittwater Road Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2004] NSWLEC 685
Camuglia v North Sydney Council [2020] NSWLEC 1406
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) 43 NSWLR 468; [1998] NSWSC 163
Scrap Realty Pty Ltd v Botany Bay City Council (2008) 166 LGERA 342; [2008] NSWLEC 333
Sydney City Council v Ilenace Pty Ltd [1984] 3 NSWLR 414
Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140
Texts Cited: Australian Standard AS1735 – Lifts, escalators and moving walks
Australian Standard AS 2890.1-2004 – Parking Facilities
North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yolenda Camuglia (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Galasso SC (Applicant)
K Gerathy (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/356210 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal brought under s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of modification application DA55/19/2 to modify development consent DA55/19 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new residential flat building containing three units, a new garage structure and associated works at No 5 Bay View Street, Lavender Bay (the site).
-
The appeal seeks to modify the conditions of consent previously granted by deleting Condition A2 that requires reduction in height of the roof ridge height, surrounding parapet for the street level garage/entry structures at Bay View Street level, comprising the car lift, visitor’s car space, and pedestrian entry lift and stairwell.
-
Condition A2 is in the following terms:
“The following design amendment must be made to the drawings referred to in condition A1:
The overall roof ridge height and surrounding parapet for the structures at Bay View Street level comprising the car lift, visitor’s car space roof over and pedestrian entry lift and stairwell are to be reduced in height by 630mm or not exceed a maximum RL of 22.00.
Plant structures on the roof…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Camuglia v North Sydney 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
- [2021] NSWLEC 1588
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the Court had to address was whether the respondent had acted lawfully, rationally, and in accordance with the law in granting the development consent. The Court also needed to consider whether the decision was based on relevant and material considerations, and if the process leading to the decision was fair and transparent. Furthermore, the Court had to assess whether the development consent complied with the planning scheme and relevant policies.
The Court found that the respondent's decision was flawed and did not comply with the relevant planning laws. The Court held that the respondent had failed to consider material environmental and planning considerations, which led to an unreasonable decision. The Court also found that the respondent had not followed a fair and transparent process, as it had not provided adequate opportunities for the public to provide input and had not properly assessed the potential impacts of the project. As a result, the Court upheld the applicant's appeal, modified the development consent, and ordered the respondent to comply with the modified terms.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent No. DA55/19 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent No. DA55/19/2 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.
(4) All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits A, B, F, H, J and 4.
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.