Allen v Pittwater Council [2011] NSWLEC 1342

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Allen v Pittwater Council [2011] NSWLEC 1342 Hearing dates: 3-4 November 2011 Decision date: 29 November 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal upheld Catchwords: Development Application: Affordable housing; SEPP 65; Whether development is compatible with the character of the local area; impact on adjoining properties Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009; State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development; State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011; Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993; Cases Cited: Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [NSWLEC 191] Texts Cited: Residential Flat Design Code; Pittwater 21 Development Control Plan Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gary Allen (Applicant)

Pittwater Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Mr M Staunton (Applicant)

Ms H Irish (Respondent) Solicitors Mr T Sattler Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)

Ms N Gillies Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Respondent) File Number(s): 10435 of 2011

Judgment 1The proceedings are an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the refusal by Pittwater Council (the council) of Development Application No M0749/10 (the application) which proposes the demolition of two existing dwellings, the construction of an affordable housing, residential flat building containing 22 dwellings with associated parking for 29 vehicles and strata subdivision of the completed building. The application was lodged pursuant to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPPARH). Of the 22 dwellings, 11 are to be used for the purposes of affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP for a period of 10 years. 50% (11) are designed as accessible units. 2The main contentions in the case are whether the design of the development is appropriate, particularly in terms of streetscape, concentration of density and setbacks, whether the proposal will adversely impact the amenity of adjacent properties and whether the development is compatible with the character of the local area.