Force G Pty Ltd & Anor v Penrith City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1092

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Force G Pty Ltd & Anor v Penrith City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1092 Hearing dates: 19-20 March 2015 Decision date: 10 April 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: two dwellings; whether contrary to original development consent and restriction to user that apply to the land; consistency with development control plan and zone objectives, overshadowing; parking; privacy; urban design; site suitability; public interest Legislation Cited: Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs); Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010; State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing Cases Cited: Parsonage v Ku-ring-gai [2004] NSWLEC 347; McDonald v Randwick City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1175; Moss v Kiama Municipal Council [2003] NSWLEC 165; The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082 Texts Cited: Penrith Development Control Plan 1998 (Lakes Environs); Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Force G Pty Limited (1st Applicant) Better Built Homes (2nd Applicant)

Penrith City Council (Respondent) Representation: Ms Sandra Olsson (Litigant in Person)

Solicitors: Ms J Wauchope, Gadens File Number(s): 10007 of 2015

Judgment 1. Ms Olsson is the Sole Director of Force G Pty Ltd (1st applicant) and owner of land at 47 Lakeview Drive, Cranebrook. She contracted Better Built Homes (2nd applicant) to build a 2 storey dwelling with detached garage and secondary dwelling above on that land. Better Built Homes lodged Development Application 14/2012 on August 13, 2014 with Penrith City Council seeking consent to construct the development. 2. As the council had not determined the application within the prescribed period, the applicants filed an appeal against the deemed refusal of the application. 3. The main contentions in the case are whether the development can be approved as it is inconsistent with an original development consent issued for a master planned estate and a restriction to user that applies to the land, whether the proposal results in adverse amenity impacts on the locality and whether the development accords to the council's planning controls.