Achi Constructions Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1213

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Achi Constructions Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1213 Hearing dates: 14 October 2014 Decision date: 15 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Tuor C Decision: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application DA2013/0283 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising fifteen (15) units and basement car parking with nineteen (19) spaces and strata subdivision at 77-79 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. 3. The exhibits, other than exhibits 2 and A are returned. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - Residential Flat Building. Amended plans address contentions Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment 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 Karavelas v Hurstville City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1195 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Achi Constructions Pty Ltd (Applicant) Hurstville City Council (Respondent) Representation: Ms A Hemmings (Applicant) Mr M Seymour (Respondent) Gadens (Applicant) Norton Rose Fullbright (Respondent) File Number(s): 10430 of 2014

Judgment 1This is an appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the refusal by Hurstville City Council (council) of development application DA2013/0283 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 15 residential units with basement car parking for 19 cars and strata subdivision at 77-79 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst (the site). 2The issues identified in the Council's Statement of Facts and Contentions were inconsistency with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) and the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) (Contention 1), insufficient information (Contention 2), and inconsistencies with the applicable planning controls that would establish an unacceptable precedent and not be in the public interest (Contention 3) 3In response to the joint conferencing of the experts, the plans have been amended. Council accepts the agreed evidence of the experts that the contentions have been addressed by the amendments to the plans and the proposed conditions.