Karavelas v Hurstville City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1195

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Karavelas v Hurstville City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1195 Hearing dates: 15 September 2014 Decision date: 23 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pearson C Decision: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application DA2013/0346 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 14 residential units with basement car parking at 66-68 Lawrence Street Peakhurst is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. 3. The exhibits, other than exhibits A, F, G, H, 4, 5, 6 and 8, are returned. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - Residential Flat Building Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 Cases Cited: FM Holdings Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1061 Category: Principal judgment Parties: William Karavelas (Applicant) Hurstville City Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr M Staunton (Applicant) Mr M Seymour (Respondent) Gadens (Applicant) HWL Ebsworth (Respondent) File Number(s): 10343 of 2014

Judgment 1This is an appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the deemed and subsequent actual refusal by the respondent Council of consent to development application DA2013/0346 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 14 residential units with basement car parking at 66-68 Lawrence Street Peakhurst (the site). 2The issues identified in the Council's Statement of Facts and Contentions were compliance with the applicable planning controls in relation to solar access, building separation and setbacks, height bulk and scale, internal amenity, privacy, streetscape, building envelope, roof design, driveway design and location, front setback treatment and communal open space; and the public interest, being establishment of an unacceptable precedent in the area and the cumulative impact of the changing nature of the area. An additional contention related to insufficient information as to solar access and the adequacy of the photomontage provided. 3The plans have been amended several times during the course of the proceedings, and those now before the Court vary significantly from those before the Council when the development application was refused. The Council's position at the conclusion of the hearing was that the agreed evidence of the experts should be accepted, and that the contentions have been addressed by the amendments to the plans and the proposed conditions. The proposed development is now largely if not wholly compliant with the relevant controls, and on that basis the Council no longer presses its contention that approval would establish an undesirable precedent.