Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Limited v Hurstville City Council (No. 4) [2006] NSWLEC 819

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Limited v Hurstville City Council (No. 4) [2006] NSWLEC 819

APPLICANT Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Limited PARTIES : RESPONDENT Hurstville City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 11591 of 2004

CORAM: Brown C

KEY ISSUES: Appeal :- modification of conditions of consent - consent orders - mixed commercial retail and residential development, additional fire escape, alterations to amenities and landscaping

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

CASES CITED: Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Westfield Management Limited 2006NSWCA 337.

DATES OF HEARING: 20/12/2006

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/22/2006

APPLICANT Mr A. Pickles, barrister SOLICITORS Heidman & Co

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr P Rigg, solicitor SOLICITORS Deacons

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Brown C

22 December 2006

11591 of 2004 Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Limited v Hurstville City Council (No. 4)

JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a refusal by Hurstville City Council (the council) of an application to modify DA 204 0454 that provided for the erection of a mixed commercial retail and residential development at 47-67 Mulga Road, Oatley. The application 2 The application is made under s 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to:

1. relocate the supermarket staff amenities and administration area to the floor level above the supermarket in the area previously denoted as commercial suites C4 and C5. The area previously forming part of the supermarket is now shown to be separately lettable commercial space; 2. create a fire escape passage through the rear landscaped area. The rear landscaped area will in part be used as an emergency exit pathway to Waratah Street. 3. install ventilation grills in the rear wall facing the southern boundary. 3 The council raised no objections to the alterations to the supermarket staff amenities and the commercial suites as the modification sought only a re-distribution of proposed uses within the building rather than any increase in floor space. The council opposed the other modifications.