Deller Homes v Sutherland [2004] NSWLEC 66

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Deller Homes v Sutherland [2004] NSWLEC 66 Deller Homes Pty Ltd Applicant PARTIES : Sutherland Shire Council Respondent FILE NUMBER(S) : 11359 of 2003 CORAM: Roseth SC KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- medium density housing adaptable housing LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 04/03/2004 to 05/03/2004 EX TEMPORE 03/05/2004 JUDGMENT DATE :

Mr S Kondilios, solicitor Maddock Lawyers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr R O'Gorman-Hughes, solicitor Sutherland Shire Council

JUDGMENT: IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES 11359 of2003 Roseth SC 5 March 2004 Deller Homes Pty Ltd Applicant v Sutherland Shire Council Respondent Judgment

Introduction 1 This is an appeal against the refusal by Sutherland Shire Council (the council) of a development application to demolish the existing four dwellings and erect and subdivide under Strata title a development consisting of twelve townhouses on lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 DP 24110, known as 39-45 Manchester Road, North Gymea.

The site 2 The site is on the southwest corner of Manchester Road and Wolstenholme Avenue. It encompasses four allotments, each of which now supports a detached house. The surrounding area is a mixture of detached and medium density housing. The two adjoining properties to the south are medium density, while the adjoining property to the west is a detached house.

The proposal and its history 3 The applicant proposes to demolish the existing houses on the site and to construct a medium density development comprising twelve two-storey townhouses in four buildings over basement parking. The buildings are sited parallel to Manchester Road in an east-west direction. Between the two rows of buildings is a pedestrian access corridor. Vehicular entry to the basement carpark is from Wolstenholme Avenue. Pedestrian entry is from Manchester Road. 4 The applicant lodged the development application in July 2002. Following notification, the council received seven objections. The council's Architect advised the assessment planner that "the architectural issues have now been sufficiently addressed". In October 2003 the council's planning staff reported on the application to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel and recommended approval. The Panel did not endorse the recommendation and recommended refusal. The council accepted the Panel's recommendation and refused the application in November 2003. The applicant lodged the appeal in November 2003.