Gurr v Waverley Council

Case [2019] NSWLEC 1548


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gurr v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 1548
Hearing dates: 24-25 October 2019
Date of orders: 13 November 2019
Decision date: 13 November 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Horton C
Decision:

Proceedings 2018/352509
The Court orders:
(1)   The appeal is dismissed.
(2)   Development consent for modification application seeking to modify conditions that formed part of Development Consent No. LD12/1999 is refused.
(3)   All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits E, F, 7 and 9.

 Proceedings 2019/155188
The Court orders:
(1)   The appeal is dismissed.
(2)   Development consent for Development Application DA-448/2018 for works associated with a trafficable roof terrace and glass balustrade is refused.
(3)   All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits E, F, 7 and 9.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – modification of consent – exceedance of height – privacy impacts – view loss
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality in Residential Apartment Development
Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012
Cases Cited: Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118
Meriton v Sydney City Council (2004) 140 LGERA 144; [2004] NSWLEC 313
Steele v Waverley Council [2018] NSWLEC 1659
Super Studio v Waverley Council (2004) 133 LGERA 363; [2004] NSWLEC 91
Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140
Texts Cited: Apartment Design Guide
Waverley Development Control Plan 2012 (Amendment No. 5)
Waverley Development Control Plan 2012 (Amendment No. 6)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Gregory Gurr (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Briggs (Solicitor) (Applicant)
M Hudson (Solicitor) (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
D.G Briggs and Associates (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/352509; 2019/155188
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: Mr Gregory Gurr is the owner of Apartment 3 at 467 Bronte Road, Bronte. He brings an appeal under s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EPA Act”) against the deemed refusal by Waverley Council (the Respondent) of modification application seeking to modify conditions that formed part of Development Consent No. LD12/1999, referred to by the parties as Appeal 1.

  2. In the alternative, Mr Gurr appeals the deemed refusal by the Respondent of Development Application DA-448/2018 under s 8.7 of the EPA Act for works associated with a trafficable roof terrace and glass balustrade, referred to by the parties as Appeal 2.

  3. As Appeal 1 relates to consents previously granted, it is useful to first set out the agreed chronology as it appears in the Respondent’s Bundle, marked ‘Exhibit 4’.

Evolution of appeals

  1. The site is identified behind Tab 4, Exhibit 4 as Lot 11 of SP63729 which includes a top floor dwelling and roof space in a mixed use development on the southern side of Bronte Road, fronting Bronte Park.

  2. Consent for a mixed use development comprising retail on ground floor and 3 x 3 bedroom apartments was granted by the Respondent on 20 April 1999 (Exhibit 4, Tab 3).

Continue reading Gurr v Waverley Council

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gurr v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 1548
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1548
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gurr v Waverley Council, the dispute centred on two appeals brought by the applicant, Gurr, against decisions made by the respondent, Waverley Council, concerning two separate development applications. The first application pertained to a modification of conditions from an existing development consent, while the second was a new application for development consent related to a trafficable roof terrace and glass balustrade. The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales was tasked with adjudicating these appeals.

The court was required to determine the merits of Gurr's appeals against the council's refusal to grant development consent for both applications. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the council's decisions were lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the relevant planning and environmental laws. The court also needed to assess whether the council had properly exercised its discretion and whether there was any error in the application of the law or material considerations.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the council's decisions were lawful and appropriate. The court concluded that the council had correctly exercised its discretion and that there were no errors in the application of the law or material considerations. The court was satisfied that the council's decisions were supported by evidence and were in line with the objectives of the planning and environmental legislation. As a result, the court dismissed both appeals and upheld the council's decisions to refuse development consent for the modification application and the new development application. Additionally, the court ordered that all exhibits be returned, except for specific exhibits identified in the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Proceedings 2018/352509

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Development consent for modification application seeking to modify conditions that formed part of Development Consent No. LD12/1999 is refused.

(3) All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits E, F, 7 and 9.

Proceedings 2019/155188

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Development consent for Development Application DA-448/2018 for works associated with a trafficable roof terrace and glass balustrade is refused.

(3) All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits E, F, 7 and 9.

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.