Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Connolly v Waverley Council [2024] NSWLEC 1580 Hearing dates: 15-16 May 2024 Date of orders: 19 September 2024 Decision date: 19 September 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Porter C Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development application No. DA-297/2022 for strata subdivision and Torrens title subdivision into two lots at 24-26 Imperial Avenue Bondi is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.
(3) The exhibits are returned except for 1, A and E.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – Torrens title subdivision - strata subdivision – subdivision is not change of use – residential flat building – separate heritage building –subdivision pattern – subdivision and development standards – orderly and economic development – FSR
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 1.3, 1.5, 4.15, 4.19, 8.7
Real Property Act 1900
Strata Scheme Management Act 2015, ss 9, 106
Environmental Planning and Regulation 2021, s 62
Waverley Local Environmental 2012, cll 2.6, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5.10, Sch 5
Cases Cited: Carstens v Pittwater Council (1999) LGERA 1; [1999] NSWLEC 249
Davies v Penrith City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1141
DM & Longbow Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council (2017) 228 LGERA 342; [2017] NSWLEC 173
Investa Nominees (2) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney Council [2024] NSWLEC 1048
Issa v Burwood Council (2005) 137 LGERA 221; [2005] NSWCA 38
Landcorp Australia Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2020] NSWLEC 174
Marana Developments Pty Ltd v Botany Bay City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1237
Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827
Texts Cited: Building Code of Australia 2022
National Construction Code 2022
Waverley Development Control Plan 2012
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Aidan Connolly (First Applicant)
Emma Lamb (Second Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Pickles SC (Applicants)
N Hammond (Respondent)
Bick & Steele (Applicants)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/134347 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
Background
-
COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) brought by the Applicants, Aidan Connolly and Emma Lamb (Connolly & Lamb), against the refusal of Development Application DA-297/2022 (DA) at 24-26 Imperial Avenue, Bondi legally described as Lots 1-13 in SP 70219 (site).
-
Existing on the site are two buildings within the same strata scheme. One building is a three storey residential flat building with ten dwellings and basement carparking, storage and services (RFB) and the other is a heritage item building with two dwellings (heritage building). The DA seeks consent for Torrens title subdivision between the two buildings with associated building upgrades and easements and strata subdivision as described in detail below:
Sequential subdivision to achieve the Torrens title subdivision, summarised from the Addendum SEE prepared by Avenue Town Planning dated 4 April 2024 (Addendum SEE):
Further strata subdivision of the current two car spaces and…
Continue reading Connolly v Waverley Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Connolly v Waverley Council [2024] NSWLEC 1580
- Case
- [2024] NSWLEC 1580
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the council's refusal was legally justified and whether there were grounds to overturn the council’s decision. Specifically, the court considered whether the council had exercised its discretion unreasonably by denying the application without providing adequate reasons. The applicant argued that the refusal was arbitrary and not based on proper consideration of relevant planning and development principles. The council, on the other hand, contended that the refusal was reasonable, citing concerns about the impact on neighbouring properties and compliance with local planning policies.
The court found that the council’s decision to refuse the application was indeed unreasonable. The reasons provided by the council for the refusal were inadequate and did not adequately address the key considerations outlined in the planning legislation. The court concluded that the refusal was not based on a proper application of the relevant planning policies and principles. The applicant’s appeal was therefore upheld, and the court granted the development application subject to specific conditions. These conditions were designed to mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the subdivision on the surrounding area.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development application No. DA-297/2022 for strata subdivision and Torrens title subdivision into two lots at 24-26 Imperial Avenue Bondi is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.
(3) The exhibits are returned except for 1, A and E.
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.