Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1096

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1096 Hearing dates: 19,20 February 2018 Date of orders: 01 March 2018 Decision date: 01 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C and Walsh C Decision: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Application 16/1310 for a shop-top housing development at 144 Henry Lawson Avenue, Werrington is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. 3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 2, A and T. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: shop-top housing development; agreement on contentions by parties but local resident objection remain Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant) Penrith City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant) Mr M Seymour, barrister (Respondent)

Solicitors: Swaab Attorneys (Applicant) Dentons Australia (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/67757 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONERS: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application 16/1310 for a shop-top housing development containing: * ground floor retail and business premises, * 27 x 2 bedroom units, * 22 x 3 bedroom units, and * basement car parking, roadworks, garbage facilities, storm water detention, landscaping works and tree removal. 1. In the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions, the council maintains that the application should be refused for the following reasons: * non-satisfaction with zone objectives, * excessive height, * contamination, * urban design, particularly in relation to adjoining development, * water quality, * waste management, and * electro-magnetic radiation. 1. A number of residents provided evidence on the site inspection and raised the following additional concerns beyond those raised by the council. These are discussed later in the judgment. 2. Following the submission of amended plans and the provision of additional information a number of the contentions raised by the council were no longer pressed leaving only the contention relating to the impact on adjoining properties in contention. This contention was discussed further at the hearing and agreement was also reached on this contention.