88 Gregory Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1020

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: 88 Gregory Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1020 Hearing dates: 18 January 2018 Date of orders: 23 January 2018 Decision date: 23 January 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris AC Decision: Appeal upheld Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: dual occupancy, impact on views Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 Texts Cited: 14 Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Category: Principal judgment Parties: 88 Gregory Pty Ltd (Applicant) Randwick City Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Mr G Green Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) Ms V McGrath (Respondent) File Number(s): 249371/2017

Judgment 1. 88 Gregory Pty Ltd (applicant) sought consent from Randwick City Council for a dual occupancy development at 38 Gregory Street, South Coogee. Despite its officers recommending that consent be granted to the application, the council resolved to defer consideration of the application pending further mediation, earlier mediation having resulted in the applicant amending the plans of the proposal in an attempt to address the concerns of neighbours. 2. Rather than proceed to further mediation with the council the applicant filed an appeal against the council's deemed refusal of development application DA/10/2017. 3. The appeal was lodged pursuant to the provisions of s34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) and commenced with a site view which included a view of the site from two adjoining properties which are owned by objectors to the proposal. 4. Those objectors provided evidence to the Court during the view. The matters raised by them concerned view loss and sought further amendments to the plans that are before the Court to reduce the proposed building height in order that the views available from the ground floor level of their dwellings could be retained. 5. The matter was adjourned and returned to Court where the parties discussed options suggested by the residents during the site view. No agreement was reached during this conciliation process and the parties requested, pursuant to the provisions of s34(4)(b) of the LEC Act, that I determine the matter on the basis of what had occurred during the conciliation conference and in particular the evidence of the town planning experts.