Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION : Cracknell Lonergan v Sydney City Council [2005] NSWLEC 68 APPLICANT Cracknell Lonergan PARTIES : RESPONDENT Sydney City Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 11020 of 2004 CORAM: Nott C KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Consent orders relating to the redevelopment of commercial and residential premises - all requiremnts of council met - impact on residential amenity acceptable. LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 DATES OF HEARING: 28 January and 21 February 2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 02/21/2005 APPLICANT Mr M Ball, agent LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr Stan Kondilios, solicitor SOLICITORS Maddocks JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES Nott C 21 February 2005 11020 of 2004 Cracknell Lonergan v Sydney City Council JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against the council's refusal of a development application relating to the redevelopment of 293 Riley Street, Surry Hills. The matter came on for hearing before me in the Court at which time the council had agreed to the Court granting a development consent. Objectors had been notified and there are no objectors in the Court at that time. All the requirements and modifications sought of the original development had been implemented in the plans that were tendered before me and were completely acceptable to the council. 2 Having viewed the plans at that time and looking at the photographs that were available of the streets surrounding the subject site, I was of the opinion that it proper to endorse the request of the parties and grant consent. 3 However, there was a question of possible contamination and rather than having that matter dealt with as a condition after the granting of consent it seemed to me that in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 it was a matter to be dealt with prior to the granting of consent. I note that a contamination assessment report has now been filed and I am told today that there is no issue relating to soil contamination. 4 At the subject site today, I have heard from two local objectors who live opposite the site on the western side. I am of the opinion that what I have been told today does not alter the view that I originally formed. Although there will some impacts by way loss of light or at least direct sunlight to Mr Church's apartment on the ground floor, it seems to me that the scale of the proposed development in this locality is acceptable. I have taken into the other objections also and agree with the council's decision that consent should be granted. 5 Therefore, I make the order in accordance with the draft consent orders signed by the representatives of the parties. ____________ A J Nott Commissioner of the Court ljr DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.