Lamalfa Investments Pty Limited v City of Canada Bay [2015] NSWLEC 1442

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lamalfa Investments Pty Limited v City of Canada Bay [2015] NSWLEC 1442 Hearing dates: 13-14 October 2015 Date of orders: 30 October 2015 Decision date: 30 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; re-subdivision and re-configuration of existing Torrens Title lots; construction of a replacement dwelling; pattern of subdivision, lot size, bulk and scale, setbacks, landscaping and internal amenity Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards Education and Care Services National Regulations Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 Cases Cited: Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lamalfa Investments Pty Limited (Applicant) City of Canada Bay (Respondent) Representation: Applicant: Mr L Katsinas (Barrister) Respondent: Mr P Jackson (Solicitor)

Solicitors: Applicant: Golottas Solicitors Respondent: Pikes & Verekers Lawyers File Number(s): 10610 of 2015

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: The applicant appeals the City of Canada Bay's deemed refusal of Development Application No. 10.2014.470.1 for alterations and additions to an existing two storey dwelling and boundary adjustment to an existing subdivision boundary. The appeal is made pursuant to s 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). 2. The matter commenced on site as a mandatory conciliation conference under s 34AA(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act). As no agreement was reached, the conciliation conference was terminated and the matter proceeded to a hearing in accordance with s 34AA(2)(b) of the Court Act. 3. At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant sought and was granted leave to rely on amended plans (Exhibit C). The parties agreed the amendments are minor.