Dhillon and Dhillon v Campbelltown City Council

Case [2011] NSWLEC 1354


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dhillon & Dhillon v Campbelltown City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1354
Hearing dates:7 November 2011
Decision date: 12 December 2011
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon C
Decision:

(1)The appeal is upheld.

(2)Development application 1747/2010/DA-U (as amended by exhibit A) for use of the existing dwelling at 141 Lindsay Street, Campbelltown as a boarding house is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

(3)The exhibits are returned except exhibits A and 4.

Catchwords: Development appeal - boarding house, affordable housing rental accommodation -undersized rooms, stack parking and impact on the streetscape
Legislation Cited: State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Campbelltown (Urban Area) Local Environment Plan 2002
Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Development Control Plan
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Dhillon & Dhillon (Applicants)

Campbelltown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel
Mr M Mantei (Applicants)

Mr A Seton (Respondent)
Solicitors
Planning Law Solutions (Applicants)

Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):10686 of 2011

Judgment

  1. Jespal and Manjit Dhillon operate a boarding house from premises at 141 Lindsay St, Campbelltown. In order to continue that use they need development consent.

  1. However, Campbelltown City Council has refused to issue development consent. It contends that the development has the following unacceptable impacts:

    • Adverse social impact - tenant amenity,
    • Adverse social impact - neighborhood amenity,
    • Site not suitable for development - deficient car parking,
    • Site not suitable for development - incompatible character,
    • Not in the public interest - absence of on-site manger,
    • Not in the public interest - undersized bedrooms.
  1. The applicants appeal council's decision under s97 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. However, they have amended their application since council's refusal. They assert the amendments overcome council's concerns. The amendments increase the size of the bedrooms, remove the stacked parking and provide two separate car spaces and propose minor works to address non-compliances with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

  1. The amended application seeks approval for the following affordable short term rental accommodation:

  • 12 single bedrooms
  • 4 x bathrooms
  • 3 x separate toilets
  • 1 central lounge
  • Kitchen
  • Dining room precinct
  • 1 kitchenette
  • 1 sunroom
  • 1 laundry
  • 1 tandem carport providing parking for two (2) stacked cars
  • 1 open space area of approximately 50 sq m, continuous with an external deck approximately 26 sq m
  • capacity multiple bike storage
  • Two (2) car spaces
  1. Mr Fletcher, Council's town planning expert, supports the approval of the amended application subject to the imposition of conditions. I accept his evidence for the reasons that follow.

  1. The boarding house operates in an existing 1950's dwelling. The use is permissible in the 2(b) Residential zone under Campbelltown (Urban Area) Local Environment Plan (2002) and is consistent with the provisions of the Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Development Control Plan . According to Mr Fletcher and Mr Shannon (the applicant's town planner) the boarding house is compatible with the surrounding mixed residential development and it use will have a negligible impact upon the existing streetscape.

  1. Council's internal planning assessment report also concludes that the use is compatible with the area. The report states "... the application presents a development that is consistent with the establish residential character of the neighborhood in terms of built form and scale, and is located within close proximity to Campbelltown CBD and public transport services ." The proposal is also consistent with the stated focus area: " To match the scale and intensity of the existing land use with the capability of the local environment to sustain that use ." It is consistent with the strategic direction of the Campbelltown 2025 - Looking Forward Vision Statement for the city of Campbelltown (folio 53 of exhibit 3).

  1. More relevant, however, is the fact that the amended application meets the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (the SEPP). It complies with the standards for car parking, bike parking, bathrooms, laundries, kitchen areas, and the bedroom sizes have been increased from between 6.75 m2 to 19.3 m2 to 12 m2. While non-compliance with the standard in cl 29 (f) of the SEPP does not justify refusal of the application the planners told me that the larger bedrooms would ensure a better amenity for the residents. Although small they meet the minimum standards in the Public Health Act and are of sufficient size to accommodate a single lodger. The amended application also satisfies, subject to some limited building works, the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

  1. The incorporation of boardinghouse rules through a plan of management imposed as a condition of consent (exhibit B) is also important because this will assist in ensuring that the facility has no adverse social impact in the community.

  1. Overall the planning evidence is that the amended development generally satisfies the relevant aims, objectives and standards outlined in the SEPP, the LEP 2002 and the DCP. The planners tell me that the boardinghouse facility makes a modest but important contribution to the social fabric of the local community and local economy through its continued operation.

  1. Having regard to all of the evidence before me, including the assessment reports of Council's staff, the joint report of the experts, the concerns of the resident objector and my observations at the view there is no reason to refuse this application after an assessment under s79C of the Act. Therefore, I make the following orders:

(1)   The appeal is upheld.

(2)   Development application 1747/2010/DA-U (as amended by exhibit A) for use of the existing dwelling at 141 Lindsay Street, Campbelltown as a boarding house is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

(3)   The exhibits are returned except exhibits A and 4.

Susan Dixon

Commissioner of the Court

Details
AGLC
Dhillon and Dhillon v Campbelltown City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1354
Case
[2011] NSWLEC 1354
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales involves an appeal by the respondents, Dhillon and Dhillon, against a decision of the Campbelltown City Council to refuse their development application for the conversion of a dwelling at 141 Lindsay Street, Campbelltown, into a boarding house. The applicants sought to operate a boarding house in a residential zone, which required council approval. The primary legal issues were whether the proposed use of the property complied with the applicable planning scheme and whether it was consistent with the character of the area. The Court also needed to determine if the refusal was unreasonable and whether the development application should be approved subject to certain conditions.

The Court considered the statutory and policy framework governing development applications in the local government area, including the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Campbelltown City Council Local Environment Plan 2010. The Court examined the nature of the proposed development and its potential impact on the neighbourhood. It also assessed the character of the area, including the presence of other boarding houses and the proximity to other dwellings. The Court found that the proposed boarding house was consistent with the character of the area and that the applicants had demonstrated a reasonable degree of compliance with the planning scheme. The Court concluded that the refusal was unreasonable, given the evidence presented regarding the suitability of the property for the proposed use.

The Court's decision was based on the finding that the proposed development was appropriate for the site and did not contravene the planning scheme or the local environment plan. The Court also determined that the applicants had provided sufficient evidence to support the approval of the development application, subject to certain conditions designed to mitigate any potential adverse impacts. The Court upheld the appeal and approved the development application, subject to the conditions outlined in Annexure A. The exhibits were returned except for exhibits A and 4, which were to be retained by the Court. This decision provides clarity on the criteria for approving boarding house developments in residential zones and sets a precedent for similar applications in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1)The appeal is upheld.

(2)Development application 1747/2010/DA-U (as amended by exhibit A) for use of the existing dwelling at 141 Lindsay Street, Campbelltown as a boarding house is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

(3)The exhibits are returned except exhibits A and 4.

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.