Bramley v Coffs Harbour City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1194

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bramley v Coffs Harbour City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1194 Hearing dates: 10,11 September 2014 Decision date: 23 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application No. 304/14 for the demolition of an existing motel and structures and the construction of a new hotel, restaurant, wine bar, function room, pool, gym and cabana at 209 Pacific Highway, Coffs Harbour is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. 3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 1 and M. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing motel buildings and structures - construction of anew hotel - restaurant - wine bar - function room, - pool - gym - cabana - whether height above development standard can be supported Legislation Cited: Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Cases Cited: Schaffer Corporation v Hawkesbury City Council (1992) 77 LGRA 21 Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] 156 LGERA 446 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Chris Bramley (Applicant) Coffs Harbour City Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr A Galasso SC (Applicant) Mr J Robson SC (Respondent) Gadens Lawyers (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 10350 of 2014

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. 304/14 by Coffs Harbour City Council that seeks development consent for: * demolition of existing motel buildings and structures; * construction of an 83 room hotel in two separate buildings comprising 29 studio rooms, 53 one bedroom rooms and 1 two bedroom unit; * hotel facilities including 100 seat restaurant, 25 seat wine bar, function room, pool, gym and cabana; * basement and at grade car parking for 107 cars; * access from a proposed service road; * signage; and * strata title subdivision. 2The contentions raised by the council in their Statement of Facts and Contentions were; 1. Height/bulk. 2. Flooding. 3. Parking. 4. Visual impact. 5. Works in the Road Reserve. 6. Public interest 7. Landscaping. 8. Operation and strata management. 9. Accessibility. 10. Signage. 11. Ecology. 12. Aboriginal culture. 3Following further discussions between the parties, additional information and additional conditions of consent, the sole contention in the proceedings amounted to whether the variation to height development standard was acceptable (Contentions 1 and 4). 4At the site inspection, evidence was heard from one nearby residential household on the impacts of flooding in the area. A number of other local residents and operators of businesses in the area spoke in favour of the proposed development.