Champion Homes Sales Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council

[2007] NSWLEC 621

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Champion Homes Sales Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 621

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Champion Homes Sales Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Sutherland Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10563 of 2007

CORAM:

Bly C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- Consent Orders for a two storey attached dual occupancy dual development

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006

DATES OF HEARING:

19/09/2007

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

19 September 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr G. Vardas, litigant in person

RESPONDENT
Ms J. Amy, solicitor
of Sutherland Shire Council

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bly C

19 September 2007

10563 of 2007 Champion Homes Sales Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council

JUDGMENT

1 This appeal relates to Development Application No. 070073 which is for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy dual development at 13 Myrtle Street, Loftus.

2 The site comprises Lot 4 DP 27183 and is regular in shape with a width of 15.24 metres and a depth of 50.336 metres and a site area of 765.1 square metres.

3 The site is included in the zone No. 3 Environmental Housing (Bushland) under Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006 (“the LEP”). In this zone dual occupancy development is included in category 3 being development allowed only with consent. It was originally thought that this development comprises a town house development which is prohibited and the application was simply refused on this basis. It is now submitted and I accept the submission that the categorisation of the development as dual occupancy within category 3 of the zone is the correct interpretation and as a consequence I have no concern that the development is other than permissible with development consent.

4 The report prepared by a council town planner Ms D. Pinfold considers in detail the applicable development standards contained in the LEP together with the various requirements of the Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2006 (“the DCP”) and concludes that the proposed development achieves compliance with all of these requirements. I have also considered these requirements and the manner in which the proposed development responds to these and I accept her analysis.

5 The application was advertised and there were no submissions received. Ms Pinfold’s report also addresses the question of the amenity of the adjoining properties and considers questions of the privacy of the adjoining properties and solar access thereto as well as the manner in which the development would fit within the streetscape. She concludes that in relation to these matters that the proposal is entirely satisfactory.

6 Ms Pinfold notes in her report that the site is designated as bushfire prone land, the development being located within 75 metres of the edge of bushland vegetation constituting a bushfire hazard. Having assessed the proposal against the provisions of Planning for Bushfires Protection 2006 she concludes that subject to a condition requiring that the building be of Level 2 construction the applicable provisions can be achieved. A condition to this effect is incorporated into the tendered conditions.

7 In these circumstances and accepting now that the proposal is not prohibited the council has now agreed to enter into consent orders with the applicant. Those orders have been provided as Exhibit 1.

8 I have now reviewed the application particularly in the light of the Statement of Facts and Contentions and Ms Pinfold’s report and I see no reason why I should not make those orders.

___________________

T A Bly
Commissioner of the Court
Ljr/A.K