Maguire v Sutherland Shire Council (1.) Furia Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (2.) [2013] NSWLEC 1115

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Maguire v Sutherland Shire Council (1.) Furia Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (2.) [2013] NSWLEC 1115 Hearing dates: 12-14 June 2013. Written submissions received 25 June 2013 Decision date: 02 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: 1. In Matter No 10133 of 2013 the appeal is upheld and approval is granted for works within the road reserve. 2. In matter No 10227 of 2013 the appeal is upheld in part. Catchwords: Development Application: child care centre, parking, traffic safety, amenity, character Legislation Cited: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards; Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006; Texts Cited: Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2006; Building Code of Australia Category: Principal judgment Parties: 1. Bridget Maguire (Applicant) Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)

2. Furia Pty Limited (Applicant) Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Mr S Nash (Applicant) Solicitors Mr M Young McCartney Young Lawyers (Applicant)

Ms J Amy Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 1. 10133 of 2013 2. 10227 of 2013

Judgment 1These two appeals are against the refusal by Sutherland Shire Council of development applications proposing the establishment of a child-care centre at two sites within the council area. Matter Number 10133 of 2013 relates to land at 36 Linden Street, Sutherland and Matter Number 10227 of 2013 relates to land at 168 National Ave, Loftus. On the motion filed by the applicants in the proceedings the Court has granted leave that the matters be heard concurrently as the applicant in the first matter shares ownership of the land the subject of the second appeal. In the interests of a just, cheap and quick resolution of the proceedings, the Court heard evidence from experts on both matters during the hearing. The parties agreed that where evidence related to both sites, that evidence be evidence in both appeals and where distinction applied because of different circumstances or site characteristics, separate evidence be heard. 2The contentions in the cases are similar and relate to whether the sites are suitable for the proposed development particularly in terms of traffic movements and safety, whether adequate provision has been made for car parking, amenity impacts, streetscape, character and whether a Plan of Management submitted by the applicant is adequate to address concerns of residents. In addition, in the Linden St matter, whether it is appropriate to allow removal of street trees to facilitate access to the property and to provide on street parking. The latter contention was not pressed when it was agreed by the applicant that all of the street trees could be retained.