Durward Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

Durward Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council - [2004] NSWLEC 12 - NSWLEC 2004 case summary — Zoe

[35]

Insofar as other design elements were initially challenged by Mr Brooker, it appears that the clarification of plan detailing and acceptance of the applicant's proposed conditions of consent can reasonably addresses these matters, which include: * Front fences; Mr Brooker is concerned that the proposed fences will present a compound effect due to their height, which is uncharacteristic of the street. In response the applicant agrees that these fences be deleted and on this basis I consider this concern is adequately addressed, subject to the implementation of suitable front landscaping. * Basement security; As the proposal does not allow for casual public entry and each unit has individual access to the basement, I do not consider this concern is sufficient to warrant rejection of the proposal. * Privacy; The main concern in this regard is for the level of privacy of the first floor terraces and also overlooking opportunities from these balconies. I accept Mr Pagan's evidence that the first floor bedrooms can be extended to common wall, which should reduce internal privacy disamenity. Also I note the applicant's proposed condition for the balconies to be divided by full length walls of opaque material. Accordingly I consider this should be acceptable and the detailed material specification to be determined at Construction Certificate stage. I also consider there would be a marginal improvement in external privacy if appropriate privacy screens are attached to the sides of the first floor rear balcony. * Lambeth Place frontage; The concern is that because 12 of the units front Lambeth Place there will be substantial additional traffic resulting in safety and disamenity impacts. However the proposal provides for all parking to be in the basement carpark (including visitor parking), which is to be accessed from Osprey Drive. While some of the units front Lambeth place, I accept there will probably be some street parking for convenience. But the applicant offers to erect a sign directing visitor parking to the Osprey Drive carpark and also to upgrade the road shoulder and kerb in this street. Taking into account that there is no identified traffic issue in these proceedings, and the likelihood of some level of future street parking/access from an alternative development, I then consider the aforementioned conditions reasonable. * Headlight glare; This concern was raised by Ms Melville whose house is opposite the site near the basement entry point. Her concern is that there will be a concentration of light spill into her front windows, due to the constant use of this access point. This matter was not specifically identified as an issue, however the view indicated that the entry alignment is offset from Ms Melville's house and it is opposite an existing 1.8 m high fence. Given the likely levels of the access profile alignment, it seems that the lights sweep from turning vehicles will be restricted to a reasonable level by the fence and adjacent vegetation, according to Mr Pagan. Therefore I do not consider this concern sufficient to warrant rejection the application, bearing in mind that an alternative subdivision development of the site, could result in multiple driveways with more light sweep. Conclusions

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (42 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Cited By (2)