Shamia v Manly Council [2005] NSWLEC 240

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Shamia v Manly Council [2005] NSWLEC 240

Applicant: Joseph Shamia PARTIES : Respondent: Manly Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 11426 of 2004

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- residential flat building

DATES OF HEARING: 26/04/05 and 12/05/2005

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/12/2005

Applicant; Mr N Howie of Wilshire Webb LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Mr R Graham of Abbott Tout

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

12 May 2005

11426 of 2004 Joseph Shamia v Manly Council

JUDGMENT) 1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Manly Council (the council) of a development application to demolish the existing building and erect and subdivide under Strata title a two-storey residential flat building containing two dwellings over basement parking for four cars on lot 4 DP 603146, known as 3 Cove Avenue, Manly.

The site 2 The site is on the upper southeast side of Cove Avenue. It has a frontage of 15m and an area of 643m2. It falls from rear to front about 5m. There is now a house on the site. 3 Cove Avenue has mixed development, including blocks of flats up to four storeys. Adjoining to the north at No 1 Cove Avenue is a three-storey apartment building. To the south at No 5 Cove Avenue is a two-storey apartment building. There is also a three-storey apartment building on the opposite side of the street.

The proposal and its history 4 The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and erect a two-storey residential flat building containing two dwellings over basement parking for four cars. Each dwelling has three bedrooms and terraces and balconies to the front, side and rear. 5 The applicant lodged the development application in October 2004. Following notification, the council received eight submissions. In February 2005 the council considered a report by its planning staff recommending approval. It did not accept the recommendation, deferred the matter and eventually refused the application in April 2005. The applicant lodged the appeal in November 2004.