Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Peninsula Developments Australia Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2011] NSWLEC 1244 Hearing dates: 18 -19 April and 9 May. 3 and 9 June 2011 (written submissions) Decision date: 19 August 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Tuor C Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The development application to demolish existing structures and construct an Infill Affordable Housing development at 9 -11 Beaconsfield Street, Newport, is refused.
3. The exhibits, except Exhibit 1, may be returned.
Catchwords: APPEAL - Development application for Infill Affordable Housing. Amendment to planning instrument, non-discretionary development standards, compatibility with character of local area. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development
Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993Cases Cited: Blackmore Design Group v North Sydney Council [2001] 118 LGERA 290
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council [1977] HCA 40; (1977) 52 ALJR 20
Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138
Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council (2005) NSW LEC 191
R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681
Terrace Towers v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 289Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peninsula Developments Australia Pty Limited (Applicant)
Pittwater Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant)Mr P Larkin, barrister (Respondent)
Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Respondent)
Solicitors
Sattler & Associates (Applicant)
File Number(s): 10985 of 2010
Judgment
This is an appeal against the refusal by Pittwater Council (the council) of a development application (N0594/10) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) to demolish existing structures and construct an Infill Affordable Housing development at 9 -11 Beaconsfield Street, Newport (the site).
The plans before the Court vary from those considered by the council. The main issue between the parties is whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. Other issues in relation to the impacts of the development on the visual and acoustic privacy and solar access of adjoining properties were generally resolved and would not be reasons to refuse the application.
Site and locality
The site is located on the southern side of Beaconsfield Street to the west of its intersection with Barrenjoey Road. It comprises two allotments being lot 29 DP 1093125 (11 Beaconsfield Street) and lot 30 DP 1093125 (9 Beaconsfield Street) and has a combined area of 2892sqm. Each lot is developed with a single dwelling and associated outbuildings and the site contains significant native trees (mainly Turpentines), particularly at its rear. The site falls from the street and north eastern corner to the south western corner with a slope of approximately 13.5%. There are views towards Pittwater from the site.
To the west, the site adjoins two detached dwellings (13A and 13 Beaconsfield Street). It also adjoins two detached dwellings to the east (7 and 5B Beaconsfield Street) and residential dwellings…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Peninsula Development Australia Pty Limited v Pittwater Coun... 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
- [2011] NSWLEC 1244
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the proposal did not comply with the requirements of the Development Act and relevant planning instruments. The proposal failed to meet the conditions set out in the development consent, including the requirement to maintain the existing height of the buildings and to retain the character of the streetscape. The court also found that the proposal did not align with the objectives of the Local Environment Plan 2018, which aimed to protect the character of the area and promote sustainable development. The court held that the Council’s decision was lawful, reasonable and justified.
The appeal was dismissed, and the development application was refused. The court held that the proposal did not meet the requirements of the Development Act and relevant planning instruments, and that the Council’s decision was lawful, reasonable and justified. The exhibits, except Exhibit 1, may be returned.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The development application to demolish existing structures and construct an Infill Affordable Housing development at 9 -11 Beaconsfield Street, Newport, is refused.
3. The exhibits, except Exhibit 1, may be returned.
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.