Elcheikh v Cumberland Council

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Elcheikh v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1165
Hearing dates: 7-8 March 2018
Date of orders: 05 April 2018
Decision date: 05 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) The development application, numbered 540/2016, for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and the construction of a 5-storey boarding house at 15 Cross Street, Guildford, is refused.
(3) The exhibits are returned, except for exhibits A and B.

Catchwords: APPEAL – development application – boarding house – character of the local area – whether apartment design guide can be used to determine future character – compatibility – amenity impacts – overshadowing – internal amenity
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 4.15, 8.7
Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011
Parramatta Local Environmental Plan
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
Cases Cited: Hastings Point Progress Association Incorporated v Tweed Shire Council 168 LGERA 99, [2009] NSWCA 285
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Obeida Elcheikh (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr A Gough, Storey & Gough (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/158784
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. Around 100m east of Guildford train station, Cross Street runs parallel to the train line and ends to the north at an intersection with the main shopping and business centre at Guildford Road. Cross Street is currently in a state of transition anticipated by multiple changes to the planning controls. That transition will increase the intensity of the residential development so that many of the remaining single storey dwelling houses may, over time, be developed for residential development with higher densities of varying heights.

  2. At 15 Cross Street, Mr Obeida Elcheikh seeks approval to construct a 31 room, 5 storey boarding house with basement car, motorcycle and bicycle parking. The 31 boarding rooms proposed comprise 13 double rooms and 18 single rooms, resulting in a capacity for 44 residents. The development application was lodged with Cumberland Council (“the Council”) on 1 December 2016. Following the expiry of the period after which an application is deemed to be refused, Mr Elcheikh appealed pursuant to the former s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“the EPA Act”). Following amendments to the EPA Act which commenced on 1 March 2018, the provisions of the former s 97 have been renumbered to s 8.7(1).

  3. At the hearing, Mr Elcheikh sought and obtained leave to rely on further amended plans. Those plans arise following the joint conference of the town planners, and seek to improve the quality of the communal lounge room and the communal open space.

  4. The Council oppose the grant of development consent on the basis of a number of contentions, which can be summarised as follows:

  • The design of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing or desired future character of the local area, particularly when considered against the envelope controls…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Elcheikh v Cumberland Council 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
[2018] NSWLEC 1165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the applicant, Mr Elcheikh, against a decision of Cumberland Council to refuse a development application for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and the construction of a 5-storey boarding house at a property in Guildford. The appeal was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Cummings. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed in law and that the refusal was unreasonable.

The court was required to determine whether the Council's decision was legally sound and whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances. The applicant contended that the decision was affected by error of law and that the Council had failed to consider relevant planning policies and principles. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was well-reasoned and in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies.

The court found that the Council's decision was based on a comprehensive consideration of the relevant planning policies and principles and was not affected by error of law. Justice Cummings held that the proposed development would have significant adverse impacts on the character and amenity of the neighbourhood, including overshadowing and increased traffic. The court also found that the proposed use of the property was not consistent with the zoning and that the development did not comply with relevant development control provisions. The appeal was dismissed, and the development application was refused. The exhibits were ordered to be returned, except for exhibits A and B.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The development application, numbered 540/2016, for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and the construction of a 5-storey boarding house at 15 Cross Street, Guildford, is refused.

(3) The exhibits are returned, except for exhibits A and B.

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.