Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Melissa Grech v Auburn Council [2004] NSWLEC 40 PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Melissa Grech
Auburn CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 10984 of 2003 CORAM: Brown C KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Erection of a residential flat building - Site area - Site coverage setbacks - Open space - Dwelling size - Isolation of adjoining site LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65
Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2000CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 04/02/2004 and 05/02/2004 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/2004 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT
APPLICANT
Mr B Goldsmith, agent
SOLICITORS
B T Goldsmith Planning Services
Ms C Schofield, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Pike Pike and Fenwick
JUDGMENT:
IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
10984 of 2003
Brown C
2 March 2004
Melissa Grech
Applicant
v
Auburn Council
Respondent
Judgment
1 This is an appeal against the refusal by Auburn Council (the council) of Development Application No. 565/01 to demolish an existing building and erect a residential flat building at 3 Clarence Street, Lidcombe (the subject site).
2 I record that an inspection of the subject site and surrounding area was undertaken on the morning of the first day of the hearing with representatives of both parties.
3 In balancing the competing evidence, I have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and the development application refused. I have come to this conclusion principally because of the non-compliance with the relevant planning control in relation to minimum lot size, landscaping and streetscape.
The subject site and surrounding area
4 The subject site is Lot 24, Section 2, DP 751. It is rectangular in shape with the frontage of 15.24 m to Clarence Street (western boundary), a depth of 45.72 m giving a total area of 696.77 m 2 . It has a slight fall from the Clarence Street frontage and is subject to flooding.
5 The subject site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house and a garage and shed adjacent to the northern boundary.
6 The property to the north at 1 Clarence Street (the adjoining site) is a single storey weatherboard dwelling with the frontages to Clarence Street, Milton Street and Railway Parade. It has a similar frontage to the subject sight to Clarence Street and an area of 680 m 2 .
7 The general area contains other single dwellings however the predominant form of development consists of residential flat buildings, up to four storeys in height. A relatively recent residential flat building adjoins the subject site to the south and provides for three residential levels above ground level parking.
The proposed development
8 T he proposed development seeks the demolition of all existing structures and the erection of a four storey residential flat building containing eight apartments above a ground level carparking area for 12 vehicles.
9 The ground level carparking area is an enclosed area and is located at a level approximately 1.85 m above natural ground level at its eastern…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Melissa Grech v Auburn 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] NSWLEC 40
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and justified under the relevant planning and development legislation. The appellant argued that the council's decision was arbitrary and failed to consider material factors, including the potential benefits of the proposed development to the local community. The respondent maintained that the decision was based on appropriate considerations, including the impact on the character of the area, traffic, and the applicant's compliance with planning obligations.
The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties and considered the applicable planning and development laws. The court found that the council had exercised its discretion reasonably and lawfully in rejecting the development application. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the council's decision was unreasonable or that material considerations were ignored. The court held that the council's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and that the appellant's application did not comply with the relevant planning requirements. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the development application was refused. The exhibits were ordered to be returned to the council.
Orders
Orders of the court
1) The appeal is dismissed
2) Development Application No. 565/01 to demolish an existing building and erect a residential flat building at 3 Clarence Street, Lidcombe, is refused
3) The exhibits are returned.
_________________
G T Brown
Commissioner of the Court
rjs
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.