Sheer Property Group Pty Ltd & anor v Randwick City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1168

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sheer Property Group Pty Ltd & anor v Randwick City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1168 Hearing dates: 22 August 2013 Decision date: 02 September 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: Appeal upheld subject to conditions Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Conversion of semi-detached dwellings into four units; parking; sustainable transport options in particular car share; change of emphasis in the DCP Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development Cases Cited: Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sheer Property Group Pty Ltd (First Applicant) Prestwick Investments Pty Ltd (Second Applicant) Randwick City Council (Respondent) Representation: First and Second Applicants: Mr M Staunton (Barrister) Respondent: Mr P Rigg (Solicitor) First and Second Applicants: Lawson Plowes Respondent: Norton Rose Fulbright Australia File Number(s): 10382 of 2013

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: The applicants have appealed under s 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA) against the refusal by Randwick City Council of Development Application No. DA/488/2012. 2The proposed development before the Court is described as alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling at 143-145 Mount Street Coogee and the conversion of the existing building into multi-unit housing comprising four dwellings, strata subdivision and associated works. Two 2-bedroom units will be reconfigured on the ground floor and a new upper storey constructed to comprise two 1-bedroom units. 3The only issue raised by the council in its Statement of Facts and Contentions is a deficiency in the number of parking spaces for future residents and visitors. The contention states: 1. The proposal has a deficiency of 2-3 spaces for residents and 1 space for visitors, i.e. 3-4 spaces deficient overall. Having regard to the exiting demand for on street parking, as per the applicant's parking surveys and Council's Development Engineer's observations, the proposal will adversely impact on the parking opportunities for existing residents and their visitors. 4The applicants dispute the council's numbers and consider the shortfall is between 1 and 2 spaces. As an alternative, the applicants propose the dedication of a car share space and membership in the car share scheme for each of the dwellings.