Solitarii Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1213

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Solitarii Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1213 Hearing dates: 9 June 2011 Decision date: 28 June 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C and Galwey AC Decision: Appeal upheld Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - demolition of the existing improvements and the construction of a multi-unit housing development - breaches of development standards for floor space ratio and wall height - inadequate side building setback - unacceptable impact on the streetscape - isolation of adjoining property Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Cases Cited: Cornerstone Property Group Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 189 Melissa Grech v Auburn Council [2004] NSWLEC 40 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Solitarii Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)

Randwick City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Ms S Duggan SC (Applicant)

Mr A Seton solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 10968 of 2010

Judgment 1COMMISSIONERS : This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application DA/452/2010 by Randwick City Council (the council) for the demolition of the existing improvements and the construction of a multi-unit housing development at 86 Dudley St Coogee (the site). The proposal provides for two separate but connected wings comprising of 6 x 2 bedroom apartments with landscaping and basement car parking with access off Dudley Street. 2The contentions raised by the council relate to: * excessive floor space ratio (FSR) and the unsuitable objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1), * excessive wall height and the unsuitable objection under SEPP 1, * non-compliance with the FSR, wall height and side building setback requirements and the resultant inconsistency with the relevant zone objectives and unacceptable impact on the streetscape, and * the isolation of the adjoining property. 3Contentions originally raised by the council in relation to the inadequate provision of off-street car parking and the impact on two trees on adjoining property were not pressed by the council following the provision of additional information.