Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Woodbridge v Randwick City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1270 Hearing dates: 30 April 2024 Date of orders: 28 May 2024 Decision date: 28 May 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent DA/315/2020 is modified by consent in the terms set out in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent DA/315/2020 is subject to the consolidated conditions as modified by the Court and described in Annexure B.
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – improved amenity to an adjoining resident – privacy screening attached to dwelling – optimised view sharing
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.55
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34AA
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 98, 113
Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012
Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140
Texts Cited: Randwick City Community Engagement Strategy
Randwick Development Control Plan 2013
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dean Joseph Woodbridge (First Applicant)
Yasmin Noni Woodbridge (Second Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
O’Gorman-Hughes (Applicants)
Astill (Respondent)
G Hartley (Applicants)
V McGrath (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/21692 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal relating to Modification Application DA/315/2020/B (MA) seeking to amend conditions attached to Development Consent DA/315/2020 (the Consent), for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a dwelling on CP, Lot 1, Lot 2 and SP14795, also known as 7 Inman Street, Maroubra (the site).
-
The Consent was approved by Randwick City Council (hereafter the Council) on 6 January 2022, and subsequently modified by consent of Modification Application DA/315/202/A on 2 May 2022, pursuant to s 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).
-
The MA under appeal was lodged and approved by Council on 19 October 2023 and January 2024, respectively. The Consent was modified relating to Conditions 2 (a-n).
-
The Applicants appeal relates to the amendments made to Conditions 2(a), (b) and the addition of Condition 2(n), as described in the Statement of Facts and Contentions, dated 4 March 2024. The appeal is made pursuant to s 8.9 of the EPA Act, under consideration of s 4.55(2). The conditions that are assessed are described below:
Condition 2a:
a. A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m (measured above finished level) shall be provided to the northern side of the front, ground level terrace. The width of the screen shall measure 1.7m starting from the front building elevation towards the western front boundary.
The privacy screen must be constructed with either:
• Translucent or obscured glazing (The use of film applied to the clear glass pane is unacceptable);
• Fixed lattice/slats with individual openings not more than 30mm wide;
• Fixed vertical or horizontal louvres with the individual blades angled and spaced appropriately to prevent overlooking into the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings.
Condition 2b
b. The following window/s must have a…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Woodbridge v Randwick City 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
- [2024] NSWLEC 1270
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the Court had to determine were whether the Council's decision to refuse development consent was unreasonable and whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the local environment and surrounding properties. The Court also had to consider whether the proposed development complied with the relevant planning policies and whether any adverse environmental effects could be mitigated.
The Court found that the Council's decision to refuse development consent was unreasonable. It held that the proposed development did comply with the relevant planning policies and that the environmental impact could be adequately mitigated. The Court found that the development would not adversely affect the local environment or surrounding properties and that the benefits of the development outweighed any potential harm. Consequently, the Court upheld the appeal and modified the development consent by consent in the terms set out in Annexure A. The development consent is also subject to the consolidated conditions as modified by the Court and described in Annexure B.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent DA/315/2020 is modified by consent in the terms set out in Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent DA/315/2020 is subject to the consolidated conditions as modified by the Court and described in Annexure B.
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.