Abstract Group Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2004] NSWLEC 316

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Abstract Group Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2004] NSWLEC 316 APPLICANT Abstract Group Pty Ltd PARTIES : RESPONDENT Parramatta City Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10268 of 2003 CORAM: Nott C KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Nine residential units proposed on a 1483 sq m site in a 2(b) zone - FSR - meaning of "natural ground level" - form and massing of the buildings - solar access to courtyards - setbacks from side boundaries - overshadowing of adjoining property - principle re maximum floor space (par 14) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 State Environmental Planning Policies Nos. 1, 5 and 6 CASES CITED: Australand Holdings Limited v Parramatta City Council [2003] NSWLEC 229; Raouf and Rita Hanna v Parramatta City Council [2004] NSWLEC 175 DATES OF HEARING: 16 December 2003 and 10-11 May 2004 EX TEMPORE 05/11/2004 JUDGMENT DATE :

APPLICANT Mr B Goldsmith, agent

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr C Gough, solicitor SOLICITORS Storey & Gough

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Nott C

11 May 2004

10268 of 2003 Abstract Group Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council

JUDGMENT 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the council's deemed refusal of a development application to demolish the existing houses at 6-8 Winter Street, Telopea and to erect nine residential units being a multi-unit housing development. 2. These units will be erected over a basement carpark. On the ground floor of each unit there is a living room, dining room, kitchen and laundry. The bedrooms, study, or TV rooms are on the first floor, and each unit has an attic. The following types of units are proposed: one three-bedroom unit, one two-bedroom unit, and seven two-bedroom units. The plans have been amended a number of times, and the plans for which consent is now sought are contained in exhibit H. Reference should also be made to SK06. 3. At the hearing, evidence for the applicant was given by traffic engineer Mr C Hazell and consultant town planner Mr A Ludvik. For the council, expert evidence was given by consultant town planner Mr D Jones and there was also evidence from the adjoining neighbour Mr R Sanders who lives with his wife at the adjoining property to the south, 4 Winter Street. On behalf of the adjoining neighbour to the rear, which is a site containing buildings relating to the Presbyterian Church, a detailed written objection was made by Mr Chapman. 4. In considering all this evidence, I have been aided by a view of the site and the locality. There are various aspects of the proposal which in the amended plans could be regarded as satisfactory. However, for the reasons which I will elaborate on further I am not persuaded that consent should be granted to the particular plans now before the Court. 5. There are some deficiencies in the proposed development by way of poor solar access for some of the courtyards, and insufficient setbacks from side boundaries. The council also raised matters relating to the form and massing of the development, which I will refer to later. 6. The subject land is zoned residential 2(b) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. In this zone multi-unit housing is permissible with consent, but residential flat buildings are prohibited. The residential flat buildings are permissible in the more dense zones, namely 2(c) and 2(d) and in addition in the 2(d) zone high-density housing is permissible. I incorporate in my judgment objectives (a), (b), and (c) of the 2(b) zone: (a) to enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area, and