Pereira v The Hills Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1113

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pereira v The Hills Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1113 Hearing dates: 8 May 2012 Decision date: 10 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal upheld Catchwords: Development application; In-fill affordable housing; whether the development is compatible with the character of the local area. Legislation Cited: Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2005. Land and Environment Court Act 1979; State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009; Cases Cited: Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 Texts Cited: Draft Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2010; Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joseph Pereira (Applicant)

The Hills Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Ms Lee-May Saw (Applicant) Solicitors Mr C Winn The Hills Shire Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 10099 of 2012

Judgment 1This is an appeal against the refusal by the Hills Shire Council of Development Application 1386/2011/HB that proposed the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and construction of 4 x three bedroom townhouses at 23 Arthur Street, Baulkham Hills. The application was lodged under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPPARH). The matter commenced as a conciliation conference under the provisions of Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the LEC Act) however, the Council officers were not delegated to enter into any agreement. The conciliation conference was terminated and the parties agreed that I dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 34 (4) (b) (ii) of the LEC Act on the basis of what had occurred at the conciliation conference. 2The contentions in the matter are whether the application is compatible with the character of the local area and is in the public interest. The Council did not press a contention regarding fragmentation of development.