Csquared Architects Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2012] NSWLEC 1358

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Csquared Architects Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2012] NSWLEC 1358 Hearing dates: 20 December 2012 Decision date: 21 December 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: To allow issue of final orders, the applicant is directed to file amended plans indicating the works detailed in Exhibit E by 31 December 2012. The council is to file final conditions reflecting those plans by 31 December 2012. Catchwords: Development application, alterations and additions to dwelling house, non-compliance with height controls, view impacts Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979; North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2001 Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 Texts Cited: North Sydney Development Control Plan 2002 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Csquared Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant)

North Sydney Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr P Clay SC (Applicant) HPL Lawyers (Applicant)

Mr J Merlino HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 11058 of 2012

Judgment 1Csquared Architects Pty Ltd lodged Development Application No. 305/11 with North Sydney Council on 29 July 2011 seeking consent to carry our alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house at No. 10 Shellbank Parade, Cremorne. The council has refused consent and the Csquared is appealing that decision. 2The appeal commenced under the provisions of s34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and, despite agreement between the experts that amendments proposed to plans addressing the contentions resulted in an acceptable solution, the council would not enter into an agreement so the conference was terminated. The parties agreed that the matters discussed during the conciliation conference and the evidence provided during the site view could be used as evidence in the hearing. The amendments proposed form Exhibit E. 3Of the contentions in the case, those pressed by the council were non-compliance with height controls and impacts on views from adjoining properties.