Spiros Paul Antonatos v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1270

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Spiros Paul Antonatos v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1270 Hearing dates: 18 April 2017 Date of orders: 31 May 2017 Decision date: 31 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson C Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Development Application 10.2016.243.1 for a boarding house at 99A Bland Street, Ashfield is refused. 3. The exhibits, except Exhibits A, B and 1, are returned Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: addition to residential flat building and change of use to boarding house; height; floor space ratio; compliance with boarding house standards; parking; character of local area; whether for affordable housing Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 Cases Cited: Koutsos & Anor v Manly Council [2016] NSWLEC 1121 Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Spiros Paul Antonatos (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors:

Ms L Moliterno (Applicant) Mr M Bonanno, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/376997

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal under section 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the refusal by Inner West Council (the Council) of development application 10.2016.243.1 for a boarding house at 99A Bland Street, Ashfield (the site). 2. The application, as amended, proposed the construction of an additional storey above an existing residential flat building (RFB) and conversion of the building to a boarding house containing eleven boarding rooms. 3. The contentions raised by the Council as grounds for refusal were that the development failed to comply with the relevant floor space ratio (FSR) controls, contravened the height control, and failed to meet a number of standards required for boarding houses including the lack of onsite car and motorcycle parking. Concern was also raised in terms of the privacy impact on neighbours and that the development was incompatible with the character of the local area. 4. The Council also queried whether or not the development met the affordable housing definition under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) (the ARH SEPP). The boarding rooms were not proposed to be furnished and minimum 6 month leases were to be sought from occupants.