Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 3) [2022] NSWLEC 1214
Hearing dates: 11-12 April 2022
Date of orders: 26 April 2022
Decision date: 26 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No. 2020/374 for a seven storey boarding house containing 24 boarding rooms and a manager’s room, at 32 Mary Street, Lidcombe, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
(3) The exhibits, other than Exhibits 1 and X, are returned.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – boarding house – contravention of the height of buildings development standard – bulk and scale – insufficient onsite car parking

Legislation Cited:

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010, cll 4.3, 4.4, 4.6
Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021, cll 1.8A, 4.3, 4.4
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 4.15, 8.7, 8.15
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 39
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Div 3 cll 26, 27, 29, 30
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, cl 2 of Sch 7A, Pt 2 Div 2, cll 10, 23, 24, 25, 26

Cases Cited:

Baron Corporation Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney [2019] NSWLEC 61
Cumming v Cumberland Council [2021] NSWLEC 1330
Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 117

Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90

Friends of Malua Bay Inc v Perkins (2014) 203 LGERA 14: [2014] NSWLEC 95
Gillespies v Warringah Council (2002) 124 LGERA 147; [2002] NSWLEC 224

Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118

RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130

Shaffer Corp Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council (1992) 77 LGRA 21

Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827

Texts Cited:

Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: John Cumming (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A. Galasso SC (Applicant)
C. McFadzean (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/230470
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal of Development Application No. 2020/374 for a seven storey boarding house containing 24 boarding rooms and a manager’s room (the proposal), at 32 Mary Street, Lidcombe (the site), by Cumberland Council (the Council).

Issues

  1. The Council’s contentions can be summarised as:

  • The proposal contravenes the height of buildings development standard under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010) of 20m with a maximum height of 23.09m and the applicant’s written request justifying the contravention of the development standard has not adequately addressed the matters required to be addressed under cl 4.6(3) of LEP 2010. The proposal’s height is not compatible with the character of locality.

  • The size and width…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 3) 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 1214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 3) involved the applicant, Mr Cumming, and the Cumberland Council. The dispute centred on a development application made by Mr Cumming to construct a seven-storey boarding house with 24 boarding rooms and a manager’s room at 32 Mary Street, Lidcombe. The Council had previously refused the application, and Mr Cumming sought judicial review of that decision.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's refusal of the development application was lawful and if the Court should grant consent for the development as applied for, subject to conditions. The Court needed to consider the merits of the application, including compliance with the Cumberland City Council Development Control Plan and the applicable legislative framework, as well as any relevant planning principles.

In its reasoning, the Court found that the Council's refusal was not justified and that the development application should be granted, subject to specified conditions. The Court held that the proposed development was consistent with the relevant planning controls and policies, and that it would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area. The Court also considered that the benefits of the development, such as providing additional housing options, outweighed any potential negative impacts. As a result, the appeal was upheld, and the development application was granted subject to conditions set out in Annexure A. The exhibits, other than Exhibits 1 and X, were ordered to be returned.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application No. 2020/374 for a seven storey boarding house containing 24 boarding rooms and a manager’s room, at 32 Mary Street, Lidcombe, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.

(3) The exhibits, other than Exhibits 1 and X, are returned.

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.