Pekic v City of Parramatta Council

[2019] NSWLEC 1376

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Pekic v City of Parramatta Council [2019] NSWLEC 1376
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 8 August 2019
Date of orders:	13 August 2019
Decision date:	13 August 2019
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	O’Neill C
Decision:	The Court orders: (1)   Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely upon the amended architectural plans listed in Condition 1 at Annexure A. (2)   The appeal in respect of the property known as 17 Rawson Street, Epping, is upheld. (3)   Development Application No. 658/2018 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at 17 Rawson Street, Epping, is approved, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011
Texts Cited:	Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Dejan Pekic (First Applicant) Patricia Raffaella Pekic (Second Applicant) City of Parramatta Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: A Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicants) J Ede, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2018/379964
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. 658/2018 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (the proposal) at 17 Rawson Street, Epping (the site) by the City of Parramatta Council (the Council).

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 8 August 2019. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties.

4. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision, if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.

5. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised, pursuant to cl 5.10(4) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP 2011).

Planning framework

6. The site is zoned R2 Low Density residential pursuant to LEP 2011 and the proposal is permissible with consent. The objectives of the zone are:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

• To ensure that non-residential land uses are located in a context and setting that minimises impacts on the amenity of a low density residential environment.

• To allow for a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors in residential neighbourhoods.

7. The existing dwelling is identified as contributory to the heritage significance of the Epping/Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) as an existing significant building, at Schedule 2, Part 5 of LEP 2011 and Section 4.4.1 of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 (DCP 2011).

8. The statement of significance for the HCA is as follows:

“An intact residential suburban area in the first quarter of the twentieth century developed alongside the railway and from earlier villa estates. It includes a variety of houses in size and style, with Federation houses and ‘between the-wars’ bungalows predominating. Mature trees, on private and public land (including remnant native trees), combine with the natural terrain to provide views, which are an integral part of the character of the area.”

Consideration

9. The proposal was amended in response to Council’s only contention regarding the detrimental impact of the original proposal on the heritage significance of the HCA.

10. The amendments to the proposal included reducing the first floor addition by increasing the setback of the front elevation of the addition from the front façade of the existing dwelling, lowering the eaves of the front elevation of the addition and reducing the visibility of the dormers when viewed from the public domain.

11. I have considered the effect of the amended proposal on the heritage significance of the HCA and I accept the Council’s submission that the amendments have satisfactorily addressed the contention raised and I am satisfied that the amended proposal will retain the contribution made by the existing dwelling to the collective heritage significance of the HCA.

Orders

12. The orders of the Court are:

1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely upon the amended architectural plans listed in Condition 1 at Annexure A.

2. The appeal in respect of the property known as 17 Rawson Street, Epping, is upheld.

3. Development Application No. 658/2018 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at 17 Rawson Street, Epping, is approved, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

____________

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (105 KB)

**********

Decision last updated: 13 August 2019