Regal Living v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 1301

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Regal Living v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 1301

Applicant: Regal Living Pty Ltd PARTIES : Respondent: Hornsby Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 11100 of 2007

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- seniors living

DATES OF HEARING: 15 July 2008

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25 July 2008

Applicant LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr J Thompson and Mr G Costellan, solicitors of Ritchie & Castellan Respondent: Mr I Woodward, solicitor of Storey & Gough

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

25 July 2008

11100 of 2007 Regal Living Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council

JUDGMENT 1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Hornsby Shire Council (the council) of a development application to demolish the existing improvements and erect a housing project for seniors containing 35 dwellings on lot 3 DP 547893, part lot 2 DP 845733 and lot 25 DP 255073, known as 232-236 New Line Road, Dural.

The site 2 The site has a 60m frontage to New Line Road and is connected to Sebastian Drive by an access handle. The total area is 5,168m2. There is a fall of almost 8m from northwest to southeast. The site forms the southern portion of the Dural Service Centre, which includes a mix of light industrial and service-related uses. The surrounding development is low-density residential.

The proposal and its history 3 The applicant proposes to develop the site with two interconnected buildings, one of three storeys and the other of four storeys. The buildings contain 35 apartments and parking space for 39 cars. Vehicular access is from Sebastian Drive. 4 The applicant lodged the development application in September 2006. Following notification the council received 74 submissions and a petition. In February 2007 the council considered the planning report of its staff, which recommended refusal. The council accepted the recommendation and refused the application. The applicant lodged the appeal in October 2007 relying on amended plans that required re-notification. The council received 44 submissions to the re-notified plans.