Lexington Homes Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1503

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lexington Homes Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1503 Hearing dates: 4,5 November 2015 Date of orders: 06 November 2015 Decision date: 06 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown ASC Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Development Application No. 124/2015 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and structures and the construction of an in- fill self care housing development at 5 and 7 Grandview Parade Epping is refused. 3. The exhibits are returned. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: whether the development is consistent with the residential character of the area – whether the development provides acceptable access – whether the development provides adequate solar access, landscape area and communal open space – whether the development will create unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining properties Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lexington Homes Pty Ltd (Applicant) Parramatta City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr G McKee, solicitor (Applicant) Mr S Nash, barrister (Respondent)

Solicitors: McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant) Sparke Helmore Lawyers(Respondent) File Number(s): 10375 of 2015 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. ACTING SENIOR COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the decision of Parramatta City Council to refuse Development Application DA124/2015 for the demolition of existing structures, removal of trees, and construction of 10 infill self-care housing dwellings pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP Seniors), with associated basement car parking at 5 and 7 Grandview Parade, Epping (the site). 2. The council maintains that the application should be refused because: 1. the proposed development is generally inconsistent with the residential character of the area, 2. the proposed development does not provide acceptable access, 3. the development does not provide adequate solar access, landscape area and communal open space; and 4. the proposed development will create unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining properties.