Connoisseur Investments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

Connoisseur Investments Pty Ltd sought leave to amend its development application for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of six townhouses at 46-48 Elouera Road, Cronulla. Sutherland Shire Council opposed the application on several grounds, including that the development did not comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and relevant planning instruments. The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which was required to decide whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its application and, if so, whether development consent should be granted.

The court identified that the primary issue was whether the proposed development complied with the relevant planning instruments, including the Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 2015, the Sutherland Council Design Guidelines 2019, and the Sutherland Coastal Protection Policy 2013. The applicant argued that the development was consistent with these instruments and would not result in adverse impacts on the environment or surrounding properties. The council, on the other hand, argued that the development did not comply with the planning instruments and would result in adverse impacts, including overshadowing, loss of light, and increased traffic.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated that the proposed development was consistent with the relevant planning instruments and would not result in adverse impacts on the environment or surrounding properties. The court also found that the council's opposition was not supported by evidence and that the development would provide significant benefits to the area, including increased housing supply and improved amenity. Accordingly, the court granted the applicant leave to amend its application and granted development consent subject to certain conditions.

The court made several orders, including that the applicant be granted leave to rely upon amended plans, that the appeal be upheld, and that development consent be granted subject to certain conditions. The court also ordered that certain exhibits be returned to the parties, except for those that were relevant to the decision. The council's appeal was dismissed with costs.