Karahalios v Sutherland Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1002

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Karahalios v Sutherland Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1002 Hearing dates: 20-21 December 2011 Decision date: 10 January 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Applicant is to file detailed architectural plans and a corresponding BASIX certificate by 17 January 2012 in accordance with the sketch plans in Exhibit G and ensuring that the maximum height of the parapet is RL34.328. Upon receipt of those plans and certificate, final Orders will be made. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: SEPP 1 objection to height development standards; heritage impacts; impacts on adjoining properties; amended plans Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; Land and Environment Court Act 1979; State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards; Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 2006; Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140; Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46. Texts Cited: Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2006 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nick Karahalios (Applicant) Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Ms J Reid Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant)

Ms J Amy Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 10949 of 2011

Judgment 1Mr Karahalios lodged Development Application No. 10/1065, which proposed alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house at No. 24 Kangaroo Point Road, Kangaroo Point. Sutherland Shire Council refused that application. An application to review that determination including amended plans (RA11/0018) was lodged under s82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) however the council upheld its decision. Mr Karahalios is appealing that determination. 2The matter was heard under the provisions of s34AA(2)(b)(i) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the LECAct) despite the majority of issues being resolved in the conciliation process by way of further amendments to the plans. Notwithstanding these further amendments, the contentions remaining are whether the proposal has adverse impacts on a heritage item opposite the site, its height and bulk are appropriate and it is acceptable in terms of privacy impacts to adjoining properties. The Court is also required to consider objections to development standards that apply to height controls in accordance with the provision of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP1).