Woodford Australia Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2013] NSWLEC 1193

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woodford Australia Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2013] NSWLEC 1193 Hearing dates: 3,4 October 2013 Decision date: 15 October 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. DA 30/2013 for the demolition of three existing shops and the construction of mixed retail/commercial/residential development at 38-42 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove is refused. 3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 1, A, B and D. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of three existing shops and the construction of mixed retail/commercial/residential development - excessive height - inadequate side setbacks - poor shop front design - poor amenity for the residential units Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 Cases Cited: Hooker Corporation Pty Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (unreported, 2 June 1986) Cripps J Category: Principal judgment Parties: Woodford Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant) Lane Cove Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant) Mr A Seton, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 10318 of 2013 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA 30/2013 for the demolition of three existing shops and the construction of mixed retail/commercial/residential development at 38-42 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove (the site). The development provides for: * Lower level 3 - basement parking, * Lower level 2 - basement parking/loading (vehicular access from Sera Street), * Lower level 1 - warehouse/retail, * Ground floor - retail (pedestrian access from Burns Bay Road), * Level 1 - retail/commercial, residential unit 3, and * Level 2 - residential units 1 and 2. 2The council maintains that the development should be refused because of; * excessive height, * inadequate side setbacks. * poor shop front design, and * poor amenity for the residential units. 3Other contentions relating to car parking, manoeuvring and floor space ratio (FSR) were not pressed following additional expert evidence, amended plans and/or additional conditions of consent. 4Additional evidence from commercial land owners and an interested community group was provided on the site inspection and supported the council contentions. Additional concerns related to loss of sunlight to existing commercial premises to the west and excessive bulk and scale largely brought about by the height of the development.