Bligh House Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1235

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bligh House Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1235 Hearing dates: 31 May 2016 Date of orders: 09 June 2016 Decision date: 09 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: boarding house; privacy and overshadowing impacts, whether design of the development is compatible with the character of the locality Legislation Cited: Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013; State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009; Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Cases Cited: Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191; Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009; Frank and Susana Tomas v Ashfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1183 Texts Cited: Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013; Building Code of Australia Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bligh House Pty Ltd (Applicant)

Inner West Council (formerly Ashfield Council) (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Pickles SC (Respondent)

Solicitors: Mr G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant) Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/154397

Judgment 1. Ashfield Council (now Inner West Council) refused Development Application No. 2015.197.1 which proposed partial demolition of an existing boarding house and construction of a new four level extension to the rear to create a 27 room boarding house above basement carparking at 30 Chandos Street, Ashfield on 9 February 2016. The owners of the site, Bligh House Pty Ltd are appealing that decision. 2. The applicant was granted leave to rely on amended plans following a conciliation conference and those plans reduce the number of rooms and also address some of the original contentions in the case. 3. The main issues in the case are whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area, the impacts of the proposal, particularly in regard to privacy and overshadowing are acceptable and internal amenity is appropriate.