Romeo v Pittwater Council

[2008] NSWLEC 1363

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Romeo & Anor v Pittwater Council [2008] NSWLEC 1363

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Guiseppe and Anna Maria Romeo

RESPONDENT
Pittwater Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11362 of 2003

CORAM:

Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES:

Modification Application :- modification of previous alterations and additions to an existing general store, post office, restaurant, heritage item on Pittwater foreshore.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993

DATES OF HEARING:

29/08/2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

29 August 2008

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr P. Tomasetti, SC
of D & C Balog

RESPONDENT
Ms P. Adraskelas, solicitor
of Mallesons Stephen Jaques

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

29 August 2008

11362 of 2003 Guiseppe and Anna Maria Romeo v Pittwater Council

This decision was given extemporaneously. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

JUDGMENT

1 This is appeal No. 11362 of 2003, between Romeo and Pittwater Council in regard to alterations to an existing general store, known as the Church Point General Store at No. 1860 Pittwater Road, Church Point.

2 The Court gave consent to previous alterations and additions to the building in 2004. However, it is to be noted that the building has been there for many years, probably built around the 1930s, and has operated as a general store since that period.

3 The application is largely to carry out internal alterations to better facilitate and to update the ability to provide general store, post office and restaurant services to the local public. All of these uses are included in the existing building and its use.

4 Being a heritage item, it was necessary for there to be a heritage assessment and this was carried out by Mr Brooks. He said the key issues in his consideration and support of the proposal are that:

“Many of the areas of the proposed works and changes are of recent date to the existing building and do not contribute to the significance of the store. Many of the areas involved are within the building and do not affect its external appreciation and the general perception of the building’s character. The overall effect of the changes appears to be a simplification. The proposed changes should help the building’s functionality and therefore its continuing use and enjoyment and therefore preserve the heritage item as a functioning building. The loss of any significant fabric appears likely to be small and minimised as a consequence.”

5 His report was incorporated in the council officer’s report by Ms Munn, who concluded that:

“The proposed works do not increase the area of the approved alterations and additions and are not considered to result in any adverse impacts upon adjoining properties or the streetscape. The proposed works are unlikely to result in anything more than a minor environmental impact on the built environment and is considered unlikely to result in an impact upon the natural environment. The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse social or economic impact upon the locality. The proposed works are considered to be suitable for the subject site and are not contrary to the public interest.”

6 The parties submitted that 109 local properties were notified of the proposed alterations and there were no objections.

7 Having considered these matters under the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993, I find no reasons sufficient to refuse the consent orders sought by the parties.

8 Therefore the Orders of the Court by consent are:

1. The application to modify development consent 11362/2003 (No 667/02) filed with the Court on 3 June 2008 is approved.

2. Development consent 11362/2003 (No 667/02) is amended by deletion of the words “ Ground Floor Plan E1 dated April 2004 ” and insertion of the works “ Ground Floor Plan CPW-002 Revision D prepared by Brad Ward Design dated May 2008 ” in Condition A6 .

3. A copy of drawing No. CPW-002 Rev. D be retained on the Court’s file together with Exhibits 1, 2, A, B and C.

9 By Consent, the Court notes:

4. The parties agree that there should be no order as to costs in relation to the application.

___________________

K G Hoffman
Commissioner of the Court
ljr