Yarranabbe Developments Pty Limited v Woollahra Council [2014] NSWLEC 1007

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yarranabbe Developments Pty Limited v Woollahra Council [2014] NSWLEC 1007 Hearing dates: 11-13 December 2013 Decision date: 14 January 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: Development application: residential flat building, SEPP1 objections, foreshore building line, bulk, scale, height, impact on adjacent properties Legislation Cited: State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards; State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP65); Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005; Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995; Cases Cited: Hooker Corporation Pty Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (NSWLEC, 2 June 1986, unreported) Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827; Texts Cited: Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yarranabbe Developments Pty Limited (Applicant)

Woollahra Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Mr P Clay SC (Applicant) Solicitors Ms A Spizzo Lander & Rogers

Mr P Rigg Norton Rose Fullbright File Number(s): 10771 of 2013

Judgment 1Yarranabbe Developments Pty Ltd (YDPL) lodged Development Application DA485/2012/1 with Woollahra Council seeking consent to demolish two adjacent dwelling houses at 83 and 83A Yarranabbe Road, Darling Point and construct a residential flat building containing 6 dwellings and underground parking, swimming pool, gym and associated site landscaping. Council refused consent and YDPL is appealing that decision. 2The issues in the case are whether the variation to the council's planning controls in terms of the siting in regard to the site frontage width, foreshore building line, side boundary setback, bulk, height and scale of the development are appropriate, whether the landscaping proposal is adequate to compensate for the trees to be removed from the site and whether the development is contrary to the terms of a covenant that applies to the land.