Foster v Pittwater Council [2009] NSWLEC 1015

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Foster v Pittwater Council [2009] NSWLEC 1015

Applicant: Barry Foster PARTIES : Respondent: Pittwater Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10661 of 2008

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: DEVELOPMENT CONSENT - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN :-

DATES OF HEARING: 19 January 2009

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23 January 2009

Applicant: LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr G Green, solicitor of Pikes Lawyers Respondent: Ms M Carpenter, barrister instructed Ms T Sheehan, solicitor of Mallesons

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

23 January 2009

10661 of 2008 Barry Foster v Pittwater Council

JUDGMENT 1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Pittwater Council (the council) of a development application to demolish the existing buildings and erect a new dwelling on lot 3 DP 29641, known as 23A Karloo Parade, Newport.

The site 2 The site is a battle-axe allotment with access from Karloo Parade over a right-of-way. The total area is 920m2, of which the access handle is 220m2, leaving 700m2 for the main part of the site. On the north side the land falls about 10m, while on the south side it falls about 9m. 3 The site is in the Newport locality, which is a low-density single-dwelling area. However, as in most sought-after areas with water views, the houses in the vicinity are not small.

The proposal and its history 4 The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house and erect a new house containing four bedrooms and an attached garage. 5 The applicant lodged the application in December 2007. Following notification, the council received four submissions from neighbouring properties, Nos 19, 21, 23 and 25 Karloo Parade, complaining about breaches of planning control that result in view loss and overshadowing. In April the applicant lodged amended plans that were re-notified. The council again received four submissions from the same neighbours. In June 2008 the council refused the application under delegated authority. The applicant requested a review of the decision, which led to a repeat of the notification and submissions. The council determined the review by refusal in December 2008. The applicant lodged the appeal in July 2008.