Freer v Waverley Council

The application is considered to satisfy objective (d).

It is mentioned in the objectives that if the proposed parking will unreasonably detract from the appearance of the dwelling … or reduce the availability of on-street car parking, a zero parking requirement may be imposed. that is to say that the maximum car parking allowance (of 1 car space) is not an "as of right" control.

With regard to the Development Control Plan, the proposed hardstand space is not compliant with the relevant controls and objectives relating to vehicular access and parking, and cannot be supported." The Applicant's Response 15 The Applicant's expert Mr G Shiels, has qualifications in Urban Planning, Urban Design (Masters), Traffic Engineering and Urban Studies. His expert report provided the following response to the issues identified by Waverley Council. 16 In response to the proposition, "that the hard stand, within the front setback zone will unreasonably detract from the appearance and quality of the dwelling house and the existing streetscape", Mr Shiels states that: "The proposa l incorporates t wo (2) permeable wheel str i ps where the vehicle w i ll be parked and the retention of the existing grassed area. The Court will note that the ba l cony has been modified with Counc i l consent (DA 134/08) . As a consequence t here is no change t o the building façade as part of this proposal . There is suffic i ent room in the front set back area to accommodate a car parking space. The ex i sting timber f ence will be reconfigured and include a sliding gate with similar materials to those i n existence. When t he car is parked i n the designated space, the appearance when viewed from the street would be simila r to t hat which prese n tly exists. A s in other matters of this n ature, the Applicant would accept a cond i tion requirin g the gates to be closed when the car is parked there . My opinion is that the proposal wil l not detract from t he appea r ance of the existing streetscape." 17 In regard to the proposition that "the proposal will result in a loss of on-street parking capacity for the exclusive benefit of one property", Mr Shiels states that: "There are currently three (3) Australian Standard on-street car parking spaces available between the no standing sign and the adjoining driveway to the west. The proposal will not necessarily result in the loss of an on-street car parking space. In practical terms, the same amount of spaces will be available as the owners presently use a street space. However, it will result in the owners of the subject site being able to park in front of the dwelling. The owners have one (1) young child and another one due in July. Their daughter has special needs; she is blind in one eye which means she has little or no depth perception when exiting from a car on the street. I understand that she will never be able to judge the distance of cars, stationary or moving. Shopping is a major is a major ordeal and frequently parking is not available on-street when returning from a shopping expedition. With young children, being able to park in the front area to unload shopping is highly desirable and creates a safer environment for children." 18 In response to the proposition that "the proposal will result in reduced pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular safety due to the lack of clear site (sic) lines for vehicle egress from the site due to the 1.8m high front fence", Mr Shiels states that: "There are other dri v eways a n d carpo r ts in the immediate area. Indeed the r e are two (2) carports at Nos . 344 and 346 Birre ll Street, which adjoin the subject site to t he west. There ar e not any a ccident stat i st i cs tha t indicate that these vehicular crossings have ca u sed a p r oblem .