Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Camuglia v North Sydney Council [2020] NSWLEC 1406 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 August 2020 Date of orders: 03 September 2020 Decision date: 03 September 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish C Decision: See orders at [29]
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – residential flat building – amenity – view loss – height standard non-compliance – cl 4.6 written variation request – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development
Texts Cited: Apartment Design Guide
North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yolanda Camuglia (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
N Sandstrom (Solicitor) (Applicant)
K Gerathy (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 19/268493 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the deemed refusal of Development Application (DA) 55/19 by North Sydney Council (hereafter the Council), which as amended, seeks the demolition of existing structures, and construction of a six storey residential flat building for five apartments with car stacker, works to an existing seawall and pool, landscaping and stormwater works on Lot 2 DP 167089, also known as 5 Bay View Street, Lavender Bay (hereafter the site).
-
This Class 1 appeal is made under s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).
-
The Court agreed to a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 28 August 2020. I presided over the conciliation conference. There were no objectors whom raised issue during notification or spoke at this conciliation. However, the Court acknowledges that a number of residents spoke at a previous conciliation of this appeal, in response to objections made during the notification period.
-
Prior to this conciliation conference, and following expert discussion, the applicant amended the supporting plans and documents to the DA, which includes the cl 4.6 written request seeking variation of the height development standard, to be relied upon in the granting of consent to the DA under appeal. Leave is granted by the Court, unopposed by the respondent, to amend the DA under appeal.
-
Based on these amended plans, together with the DA’s supporting documents and agreed conditions of consent, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The parties agree that the issues previously raised by the objectors have been considered and resolved. The decision of the parties is to uphold the appeal and grant consent to DA 55/19 with conditions.
-
Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision, if…
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
- [2020] NSWLEC 1406
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the defendant had breached its statutory duty of care towards the plaintiff. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the defendant had failed to maintain the public footpath in a safe condition, which led to the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff's contributory negligence played a role in the incident, potentially reducing the defendant's liability.
In resolving the case, the court found that the defendant had indeed breached its statutory duty of care. The evidence presented showed that the defendant had failed to maintain the footpath properly, resulting in hazardous conditions that contributed to the plaintiff's fall. The court also considered the plaintiff's actions and determined that their contributory negligence was not significant enough to absolve the defendant of liability. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, reflecting the extent of their injuries and the defendant's breach of statutory duty.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [29]
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.