Stephenson v Hurstville City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1289

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stephenson v Hurstville City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1289 Hearing dates: 31 August 2012 Decision date: 17 October 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pearson C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - Additions to existing commercial premises - Overshadowing - Visual impact, bulk and scale - Zone transition Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 Cases Cited: Pafburn v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWLEC 444 Parsonage v Ku-ring-gai Council [2004] NSWLEC 347 Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 Seaside Property Developments Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 117 The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wayne Stephenson (Applicant) Hurstville City Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors Mr J Burrell, J Burrell Solicitors (Applicant) Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 10630 of 2012

Judgment 1This is an appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the refusal by the respondent Council of consent to Development Application No. 11/DA-156 for additions to the rear of premises from which Beverley Hills Mowers and Chainsaws has operated its business for a number of years at 108 Stoney Creek Road, Beverly Hills (the site). 2The development application was lodged on 12 May 2011. The plans have been modified since the application was originally lodged and those now before the Court propose the construction of a two storey addition comprising ground level parking and loading area and first floor store and accessible toilet. It is also proposed to construct a carport at the north-western end of the site. The Council refused consent on 16 May 2012. 3The contentions in the case are whether the overshadowing impacts of the development are acceptable and whether the bulk and scale of the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives and provides an appropriate transition between zones.