Quinn Homes Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

[2005] NSWLEC 224

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Quinn Homes Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2005] NSWLEC 224

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Quinn Homes Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT
Ku-ring-gai Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10675 of 2004

CORAM:

Moore C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Consent :-
Demolition of an existing house and the erection of a dual occupancy

DATES OF HEARING:

25/01/2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

04/19/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr P Snelgrove, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Snelgrove Lawyers

RESPONDENT
Mr R Fox, solicitor
SOLICITORS
DEACONS

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Moore C

19 April 2005

10675 of 2004 Quinn Homes Pty Ltd v
Ku-ring-gai Council
JUDGMENT

The consequence of the Court’s decision in this appeal will be the grant of development consent subject to detailed conditions. These conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but will be available for inspection at the Council when the formal orders have been issued. In addition, a copy the Court’s Orders and the conditions may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders and conditions are available on the Court’s web site at

1 The parties come before me with proposed consent orders concerning the demolition of an existing house on the corner of Addison Avenue at Moore Street at East Roseville and the erection, on the thus vacated site, of a dual occupancy.

2 During the course of the process of dealing with this appeal, modifications have been undertaken to the plans to provide greater boundary setbacks and a more extensive landscaping treatment to the corner of Addison Avenue and Moore Street, the site being a prominent one in the locality. I am satisfied that the revised plans now presented to me are acceptable in that context.

3 There is one outstanding matter pressed by a resident objector, which concerns the removal of a tree, such removal being necessary for the construction of the project. Removal of the tree is not opposed by the council. Being aware of the site, a view is not necessary and I am satisfied that the removal of the tree is acceptable in the context of the landscaping proposed to be incorporated in the revised boundary treatment on the site.

4 This morning, I have drawn the attention of the parties to the provision of one of the conditions proposed for the consent which refer to a document as being attached to the conditions, when in fact this was not the case. As a consequence I am unable to adopt the conditions without them being checked to ensure that there are no other such instances and that all such instances are deleted.

5 I therefore indicate that I propose to make the consent orders as sought, subject to the filing of revised, checked and agreed conditions. Those consent orders and conditions to be filed electronically and in a format consistent with that required by Practice Direction 2/2005. If this is done I will make the orders by consent in Chambers without requiring further attendance of the parties.

6 However, in order to ensure that there is a degree of discipline attached to the process, I will formally set the matter down for call-over on 10 May 2005 on the basis that if the agreed conditions and proposed consent orders are filed by that time, the orders will be made in Chambers and the call-over vacated.

7 The matter is adjourned to call-over on 10 May 2005.

Tim Moore

Commissioner of the Court