Le v Fairfield City Council

Case [2007] NSWLEC 80



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Le v Fairfield City Council [2007] NSWLEC 80
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Quan Than Le

RESPONDENT
Fairfield City Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10984 of 2006
CORAM: Hussey C
KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Battle-axe subdivision, width of allotment, width of access corridor
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 1994
DATES OF HEARING: 19/02/2007
 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

2 March 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr G. Green, solicitor
of Pike Pike and Fenwick

RESPONDENT
Mr G. Castellan, solicitor
of Ritchie & Castellan



JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Hussey C

      2 March 2007

      10984 of 2006 Quang Than Le v Fairfield City Council

      JUDGMENT

      Background.

1 This appeal was lodged against council's refusal of a development application for a 2 lot residential subdivision at No. 42 Curtin Street, Cabramatta. The subject site has a total area of 1012 sq m and a street frontage of 13.485m.

2 There is any existing single storey clad and tiled roof dwelling, garage and shed on the subject land. It has a large rear yard, which is currently vacant.

3 The proposed subdivision is described as:

      • Lot 1; the frontage lot with an area of 527.47 sq m and street frontage of 12.695 m. This lot is subject to a 2.5 m wide right-of-way (ROW), which facilitates access to the rear lot,
      • Lot 2; which is the rear hatchet-shaped lot with an area of 450 sq m, excluding the right-of-way. It includes a 1 m wide right-of-way handle, to connect No. 2 Curtin Street.

4 The main issues concern on the area of the road frontage allotment and the width and utility of the effective battleaxe handle to the rear lot.

      Planning Controls
          Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 1994 ;
          Under which the site is zoned 2 (a), Residential and the proposed subdivision is permissible with consent, subject to the provisions of clause 22A, which are of 450 sqm for each new allotment.
          Fairfield City Wide Development Control Plan 2006;
          This DCP contains the detailed controls for subdivision, including:
          • Lot sizes, where the objectives are to;
          • Ensure privacy is maximised for neighbours of the development and those who occupy the single dwelling.
          • Provide space for private recreation purposes.
          • Provide space for landscaping.
          • Front, side and rear setback controls,
          • Dwelling positions,
          • Off-street parking,
          • Privacy.
          DCP Subdivision Chapter ;
          This control provides minor changes to the City Wide DCP. Of relevance in this matter it stipulates that the proposed control for battleaxe handle width is 4 m (increased from 3.5 m), to comply with the recommendations of the NSW Fire Brigades Policy for Minor Residential Developments Revision 3.

      The evidence.

5 Detailed evidence on behalf of council was presented by Mr G Lucas (council's coordinator engineering assessment) and Mr G Milienou (council town planner).

6 Mr R McGuiness (consulting town planner) provided evidence on behalf of the applicant.

7 A joint planning conference was undertaken Mr McGuiness and Mr Lucas.

8 However, in response to the issues raised the applicant submitted amended plans at the on-site hearing. These amended plans comprise ‘ Treatment 1’, which provides for an effective 4 m wide right of carriageway for the rear allotment, together with alteration to the side boundary of the existing dwelling. ‘ Treatment 2’ provides for a similar 4 m access handle, together with removal of approximately a 1 m of design or of the existing dwelling and replacement with a fire rated, new cavity brick wall. It also included alterations to the front (northern) elevation of the dwelling, to maintain a reasonable level of symmetry for existing dwelling.

9 After consideration of these amended plans, both Mr Lucas and Mr Milienou were satisfied that the ‘ Treatment 2’ plans reasonably satisfied that planning controls, to merit conditional consent.


      Conclusion.

10 Having considered the evidence and undertaken a view I am satisfied that these amended ‘ Treatment 2’ plans merit consent. In the first instance, both lots exceed the minimum lot area of 450 sq m, as provided for in the DCP. It is apparent that there is sufficient unconstrained land to unable the construction of a new dwelling on the rear hatchet shaped lot.

11 This also appears to be the case with a number of the adjoining properties, which have large undeveloped rear yard areas. However, in the absence of any plans to coordinate access to these rear yard areas to facilitate more orderly subdivision and development, inevitably this is to be achieved by a series of battleaxe lots.

12 Under these circumstances, the amended plan now provides the minimum access corridor of 4 m, albeit with a 1m wide legal handle for Lot 2, together with a 3 m right of carriageway over front Lot 1, which complies with councils requirements.

13 This proposal also satisfies the on-site parking provisions and the requirements for services to the rear allotment, according to the evidence put before the Court.

14 In the absence of any significant challenge to this amended proposal, I accept that conditional consent should now be granted. The conditions should provide for the designated alterations to the existing dwelling house and provision of the access driveway, service corridor and landscaping arranges, prior to release of the Subdivision Certificate.


      Court Orders
        1. The appeal is upheld.
        2. Development consent is granted to DA 733/2006 for a 2 lot subdivision of No. 42 Curtin Street, Cabramatta subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
        3. Exhibits may be returned except for 3,A, D, F and G.

___________________

      R Hussey
      Commissioner of the Court
      ljr
Details
AGLC
Le v Fairfield City Council [2007] NSWLEC 80
Case
[2007] NSWLEC 80
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Le v Fairfield City Council, the applicant, Quan Than Le, appealed the Fairfield City Council's decision to refuse a development application for a two-lot residential subdivision at 42 Curtin Street, Cabramatta. The subject property features an existing single-story dwelling, garage, and shed, with a large vacant rear yard. The proposed subdivision included a frontage lot of 527.47 sq m and a rear lot of 450 sq m, with a 4 m wide access corridor connecting the rear lot to the street. The primary issues at hand involved the width of the allotment and the adequacy of the access corridor to the rear lot. The Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 1994 and the Fairfield City Wide Development Control Plan 2006 governed the site's zoning and the subdivision's permissible controls.

The court had to determine whether the proposed subdivision met the zoning requirements and the development control plan provisions. The applicant presented amended plans during the hearing, which proposed a 4 m wide access corridor for the rear lot and alterations to the existing dwelling to maintain symmetry. The council's town planner and engineering assessment officer testified that the amended plans met the planning controls and recommended conditional consent. The court accepted that the amended plans met the requirements and granted the development consent subject to specified conditions, including the alteration of the existing dwelling and the provision of the access driveway, service corridor, and landscaping arrangements before releasing the subdivision certificate.

The court's final orders were to uphold the appeal, grant development consent for the proposed subdivision subject to the specified conditions, and allow the return of exhibits except for 3, A, D, F, and G. The decision provided a clear pathway for the applicant to proceed with the subdivision, subject to the stipulated conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.