Modern Motels Pty Limited v Fairfield City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1075

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Modern Motels Pty Limited v Fairfield City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1075 Hearing dates: 29,30 April 2013 Decision date: 07 May 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Development Application No. 114.1/2012 for the construction of two buildings to be used for take-away food premises (Red Rooster and Souvlaki Hut) and associated parking and drive through facilities at 161-167 Hume Highway Lansvale is refused. 3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibit 1. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of two buildings to be used for take-away food premises (Red Rooster and Souvlaki Hut) and associated parking and drive through facilities - whether access available to classified road - suitability of deceleration lane - internal traffic conflicts - adequate sight distance for egress of vehicles into adjoining street Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 1994 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Modern Motels Pty Ltd (Applicant) Fairfield City Council (Respondent) Representation: Dr S Berveling, barrister (Applicant) Mr A Seton, solicitor (Respondent) Anthony Clive Parisi Solicitor (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 11165 of 2012

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: This appeal relates to the deemed refusal of Development Application No. 114.1/2012 by Fairfield City Council (the council) for the construction of two buildings to be used for take-away food premises (Red Rooster and Souvlaki Hut) and associated parking and drive through facilities at 161-167 Hume Highway Lansvale (the site). 2The council maintained that the proposed development must be refused, as the proposed development must not have access from the Hume Highway. If the Court finds that the proposed development can have vehicular access from the Hume Highway then the proposed development ought be refused because: * a deceleration lane should be provided on the Hume Highway, * the internal traffic movements are unsafe, * vehicular movements turning right from the site into Chadderton Street have insufficient sight distance, and * insufficient details on operating hours. 3Matters originally raised by the council in relation to acoustic impacts, garbage storage and the management of the facilities were not pressed by the council following the provision of further information. Insufficient details on building design were accepted by the council as a matter that could be addressed by conditions of consent.