Oreison Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1210

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Oreison Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1210 Hearing dates: 25-26 July 2012 Decision date: 03 August 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: Residential care facility, impacts on adjoining properties, whether development has adequate regard to design principles, whether SEPP 1 objection is required Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994; State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004; State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004; State Environmental Planning Policy No 1- Development Standards Cases Cited: Jenny-Lynn Properties Pty Ltd v Rockdale City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1014 Marina Bay Developments Pty Limited v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 41; Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827; Texts Cited: Development Control Plan No. 1 - Hurstville LGA Category: Principal judgment Parties: Oreison Pty Limited (Applicant)

Hurstville City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Mr M Wright (Applicant) Solicitors Mr C Gough Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)

Mr A Seton Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 10203 of 2012

Judgment 1This is an appeal in relation to the refusal of Development Application No10/DA-74 by Hurstville City Council. That application proposed the construction of alterations and additions to an existing residential care facility and the consolidation of the site under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP). 2The issues in the appeal are whether: * the development standard contained in clause 40(3) of the SEPP applies to the development and if it does, should the objection to that development standard be upheld; * the proposed setback to Queensbury Road is adequate; * the proposal satisfies the design principles of the SEPP; * the proposal adversely impacts the amenity of adjoining properties; * the development can be connected to water and sewer.