Kevin Snell Pty Limited v Manly Council

[2004] NSWLEC 679

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Kevin Snell Pty Limited v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 679

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Kevin Snell Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Manly Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11023 of 2004

CORAM:

Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Consent :- Amendment to s 96 consent issued by Manly Council.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

17/11/2004

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

11/17/2004

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr B. Bulford, solicitor
The Bruce & Stewart Commercial Practice

RESPONDENT
Ms C A Schofield, solicitor
Pike Pike & Fenwick

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

17 November 2004

11023 of 2004 Kevin Snell Pty Limited v Manly Council

JUDGMENT

1 This was a class 1 appeal for a s 96 amendment of a consent issued by Manly Council to Snell Architects on 5 May 2004 for alterations and additions to 110-112 The Corso, Manly.

2 The property is a heritage item in a conservation area. The consent permitted internal renovations of the heritage item and the addition of a rooftop level, the structure of which was to be set back from the two street frontages of the property and constructed with a low mansard roof. From the street the roof would be not observable by pedestrians. It also incorporated, between that structure and the parapet on the external walls of the building, a roof terrace, which would be trafficable for people utilising the top floor.

3 The consent issued on 5 May contained deferred commencement conditions, which required certain amendments, documents were submitted to the council and on 2 July 2004. An operational consent was issued. After that time the applicant lodged the s 96 application which was subject of a deemed refusal and therefore comes before the Court.

4 In the interim the parties have negotiated and on the day of the hearing the parties came with consent orders seeking the Court’s agreement to them.

5 The original s 96 application had been exhibited for public comment and no objections were received. Therefore there was no necessity for a notification to any persons of the hearing today or the consent orders sought.

6 The amended conditions in exhibit 1, which the parties had agreed to, appeared on a reading and comparison with the approved drawings and the s 96 application drawings, to actually enhance the restoration of the building and the addition of its roof, such that it would be a better representation of the heritage significance of the building than the original consent might have give rise to.

7 That being the case, the Court sees no reason to refuse the consent order sought and the Orders of the Court, by consent of the parties, are:

(1) The hearing date of 3 December 2004 is vacated;

(2) The appeal is upheld;

(3) The application lodged pursuant to s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 on 16 June 2004 as amended, with respect to the premises known as 110-112 The Corso, Manly, is approved and development consent 494/03 is modified pursuant to s 96(1A) as set out in annexure A hereto;

(4) Exhibits 1, 2, A and B are retained on the Court’s file;

(5) The Court notes the agreement between the parties that each party shall bear its own costs of the proceedings.

________________________

K G Hoffman

Commissioner of the Court

ljr