Archiworks Architects Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council

Archiworks Architects Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council - [2004] NSWLEC 392 - NSWLEC 2004 case summary — Zoe

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Archiworks Architects Pty Limited

Respondent/Defendant:

Sutherland Shire Council

Cases Cited (3)

CITATION : Archiworks Architects Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 392 APPLICANT: Archiworks Architects Pty Limited RESPONDENT: PARTIES : APPLICANT: Archiworks Architects Pty Limited RESPONDENT: Sutherland Shire Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10434 of 2004 CORAM: Watts C at 1 KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Height - bulk and scale - Privacy Streetscape LEGISLATION CITED: Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2000 - (SSLEP)Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses in 2(a1), 2(a2) and 2(b) Residential Zones - Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss79C and 97 CASES CITED: Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313 - Winten Property Group Limited -v- North Sydney Council, [2001] NSWLEC 46, DATES OF HEARING: 15/07/2004 EX TEMPORE 07/15/2004 JUDGMENT DATE :

18 There are proposed screens on the north and horizontal elements on the east, to reduce privacy impacts. The screens on the north, I accept, would significantly add to the bulk of the building and would physically intrude on the private open space of No. 14 Gascoyne Place. In relation to privacy Mr Mathieson made reference to the principles in the decision of Senior Commissioner Roseth in Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313 paras 45-6.

22 Mr Mathieson submitted, and I accept the supporting evidence, that there is sufficient area for a three-point turn and for vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction. I also accept the evidence that no safety issues would arise as the sightlines of drivers entering onto Fowler Road are good and the width of the road at that point has been increased by providing a slip-lane, which is very unusual in residential areas. As a result, main through traffic is well visible to drivers leaving the site in a forward direction. Mr Hoang accepted that for drivers leaving in a forward direction there would be no problem with sightlines. Access from Gascoyne Place to the proposed garage 23 The height limits seem to be exceeded as a result of the applicant's desire to obtain vehicular access to and from Gascoyne Place. The garage is included above the proposed building and the entire roof of the garage exceeds the 7.2m wall height and ridge itself exceeds the 9 m height limit for at least two-thirds of its length. SEPP1 objection 24 The applicant in a SEPP1 objection sought dispensation for height in respect of one isolated position. But as can be seen in Exhibit 10 the height has been exceeded along the eastern side and above the garage. So in terms of the prescription laid down in Winten Property Group Limited -v- North Sydney Council, [2001] NSWLEC 46, 6 April 2001, paras 22 - 26, Mr Mathieson submitted that the applicant's SEPP1 objection should not be upheld as the applicant failed to demonstrate that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the case.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (75 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (3)