Design Workshop Australia Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1236

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Design Workshop Australia Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2014] NSWLEC 1236 Hearing dates: 3 November 2014 Decision date: 13 November 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Tuor C Decision: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application (DA2013/0268) for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising twenty three (23) units and basement car parking with twenty nine (29) spaces at 3, 5 and 7 Gover Street, Peakhurst, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. 3. The exhibits, other than exhibits 4, A and B, 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 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Design Workshop Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant) Hurstville City Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr M Staunton (Applicant) Ms J Hewitt (Respondent) Gadens (Applicant) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 10346 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 a development application (DA2013/0268) for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising twenty three (23) units and basement car parking with twenty nine (29) spaces at 3, 5 and 7 Gover 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), inconsistency with Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (the LEP) (Contention 2), inconsistency with Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide (the DCP) (Contention 3), public interest by establishing an unacceptable precedent (Contention 4), and insufficient information (Contention 5). The inconsistencies with the planning controls primarily relate to the bulk, scale and amenity impacts of the proposal, including solar access, privacy and streetscape impacts. 3In response to the joint conferencing of the experts, the plans have been amended. While council does not agree to consent orders, it accepts the agreed evidence of the experts that the Contentions have been addressed by the amendments to the plans and the proposed conditions.