Karbone v Ashfield Council [2014] NSWLEC 1044

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Karbone v Ashfield Council [2014] NSWLEC 1044 Hearing dates: 6 March 2014 Decision date: 06 March 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: 1. Appeal upheld 2. DA 52/2013 for alterations and additions to an existing boarding house on Lot 1 in DP 169164, known as 30 Chandos Street, Ashfield, as amended subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A. Catchwords: CONSENT ORDERS: Additions and alterations to an existing boarding house; amenity; solar access Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 Ashfield Local Environmental Plan2013 State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 Cases Cited: Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Karbone (Applicant) Ashfield Council (Respondent) Representation: Applicant: Mr D Carbone (Solicitor) Respondent: Mr P Jackson (Solicitor) Applicant: Sydney Law Practice Respondent: Pikes & Verekers Lawyers File Number(s): 10771 of 2013

Judgment This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1COMMISSIONER: The application before the Court is for alterations and additions to an existing two-storey boarding house at 30 Chandos Street, Ashfield. 2The existing boarding house comprises ten units. The history of the proposal and the actions of the parties are detailed in the council's Statement of Facts and Contentions in Reply. In summary, the proposal has been revised and amended from a proposed part two/part three storey development with 20 rooms, including one for an on-site manager, to the current proposal for a two storey extension and 19 rooms as well as car and motor bike parking, landscaping and ancillary structures. 3The parties have reached an agreement they consider meets the concerns raised by council and satisfactorily addresses the issues raised by objectors. The parties propose consent orders and have agreed on conditions of development consent. 4In accordance with the Court's practice direction, all the objectors were notified of the content of the proposed orders and the consent orders hearing. Two objectors made further submissions, one in person, one in writing.