Hazouri v Mosman Municipal Council

Proposal

1. There were considerable amendments to the proposal in the lead up to, and during the course of, the hearing. These are raised relevantly below. Nonetheless, the main features of the proposal can be outlined as follows (selected excerpt from Ex 1, par 1.2): Demolition All structures on site. Ground floor Open plan lounge/kitchen/dining room and bathroom, large deck and pool. Level one Three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a laundry. Level two Master bedroom, terrace, ensuite and study. Level three Open plan kitchen/dining/living area, terrace, WC, double garage, main pedestrian access. Rear yard Removal of selected trees and landscaping. Swimming pool.

1. There would be lift and stairwell access to each level. There would be removal of selected trees and various landscape treatments are proposed.

Statutory considerations

1. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 (MLEP). There is no dispute that the proposal is permissible within the R2 zone. The zone objectives are as follows: • To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. • To retain the single dwelling character of the environmentally sensitive residential areas of Mosman. • To maintain the general dominance of landscape over built form, particularly on harbour foreshores. • To ensure that sites are of sufficient size to provide for buildings, vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping and retention of natural topographical features. • To ensure that development is of a height and scale that seeks to achieve the desired future character • To encourage residential development that maintains or enhances local amenity and, in particular, public and private views. • To minimise the adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings.
2. Clauses 4.3 and 4.3A of MLEP provide controls relating to building and wall height which the proposal would contravene, a matter for attention below.
3. Mosman Residential Development Control Plan 2012 (MRDCP) also applies. The site falls within the Balmoral Townscape under MRDCP.

Proceedings

1. The proceedings were initially subject to mandatory conciliation in accordance with the provisions of s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). However, no agreement was reached and the matter proceeded to hearing.
2. Proceedings were conducted under the guidance of the Court's COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy issued 1 July 2020. After a site inspection, which provided for the hearing of oral submissions from objectors, the hearing was conducted in a "virtual" courtroom arrangement under the Microsoft Teams platform.

Issues

1. Council had originally raised contentions in relation to urban planning, stormwater, traffic and tree loss. In regard to the latter three topics, joint conferencing between experts within these disciplines and subsequent amendments to the proposal had resulted in the contention being resolved. The urban planning issues warranting attention here can be summarised as follows:

• building height
• bulk and scale
• view loss.

1. The experts providing evidence to the court were Mr G Boston (for the Applicant) and Ms K Gordon (for Council).
2. I will start with the consideration of the proposal's building and wall height contraventions which will be seen to necessarily involve a consideration of view loss and bulk and scale. Then I will proceed to consider further points raised in objecting submissions.

Building height and wall height development standards contravention

1. The proposal would provide for a contravention of MLEP in two ways, each relating to its height:

• Clause 4.3 provides that the height of a building on the site "not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map", which in this case is 8.5m.
• Clause 4.3A provides that a building on the site must not have a wall height that exceeds 7.2 metres.

1. The Applicant is seeking exceptions for the contravention of development standards under cl 4.6(2) of the MLEP, which provides relevantly as follows: (2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument...
2. The permissive power in cl 4.6(2) is subject to the restrictions in subcll 4.6(3)- (5): (3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating - (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. (4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless - (a) the consent authority is satisfied that - (i) the applicant's written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and (ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (b) the concurrence of the Planning Secretary has been obtained. (5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Planning Secretary must consider - (a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and (b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and (c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Planning Secretary before granting concurrence.
3. Thus, the Court must form two positive opinions of satisfaction under cl 4.6(4)(a) of the MLEP to enliven the permissive power under cl 4.6(2) to grant development consent notwithstanding a development standard contravention (Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [14]). The first opinion is in regard to a written request from the Applicant seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard and, specifically, whether it has adequately addressed the two matters required to be demonstrated at cl 4.6(3). The second opinion requires me to make my own finding of satisfaction that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objective of the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.
4. The Applicant has opened up the possibility of application of cl 4.6(2) of the MLEP in this matter by submission of written requests seeking to justify each of the contraventions. These written requests, each dated 25 March 2021 and prepared by Boston Blythe Fleming were tendered together as Ex O in proceedings (leave granted 26 March 2021). Henceforth I will refer to the written requests as follows: the written request referring to the wall height contravention will be referred to as WR1 with the written request referring to the building height contravention referred to as WR2.

Wall height contravention

1. The wall height contravention under cl 4.3A of the MLEP is greater than that relating to building height (cl 4.3). I will therefore consider it first. The wall height contravention is greatest at the south eastern corner of the Level 3 roof parapet at 3.69m or 51.25%. There is a contravention of 2.8m at the south-western corner of the Level 3 roof parapet and 1.38m at the south-eastern corner of the Level 3 balcony (Ex O, p 65).

Whether compliance unreasonable or unnecessary

1. Mindful of cl 4.6(3)(a) of MLEP, WR1 initially seeks to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. It does so mindful of Preston CJ's finding in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827 (Wehbe). WR1 uses the first "Wehbe way", seeking to show how, otherwise, the development achieves the objectives of the standard. It is notable here that cl 4.3A does not have nominated objectives of itself. WR1 uses the objectives of cl 4.3 of MLEP, headed "Height of buildings", for examination. It seems to me that this is a reasonable course in the circumstances (ie where the clauses have a commonality in their titles) with cl 4.3A reasonably seen as involving "additional" provisions to the overall topic of Height of buildings. The objectives of cl 4.3 are, relevantly, as follows. (i) to share public and private views, and (ii) to minimise the visual impact of buildings particularly when viewed from the harbour and surrounding foreshores, and (iii) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the desired future character of the area in terms of building height and roof form, and (iv) to minimise the adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings

Sharing of public and private views

1. WR1 undertook a view sharing assessment based on the approach adopted in s 4.3 of MRDCP from viewer positions at 19, 22, 24 and 26 Stanton Road. I can say now that I accept WR1's arguments that view loss to 19, 24 and 26 Stanton Road would be negligible or that there would be no impact.
2. In part as an aside, I will also note here that while the decision on "satisfaction" with regard to the tests in cl 4.6 of MLEP, are mine alone, it can useful to me in coming to such decision to have a mind to the views expressed in expert evidence. In respect to the point under consideration here, I note that the planning experts agreed that, having inspected surrounding properties, the view loss contention before the hearing should be limited to that experienced at 22 Stanton Road (Ex 3, par 118).
3. Turning to 22 Stanton Road (ie the property most at risk from view loss), WR1 made reference to a computer-aided view assessment, using surveyed height poles, which was prepared on behalf of the owners of 22 Stanton Road (Attachment A to Ex O, also provided in part within Council's bundle (Ex 2, Tab 6)). The planning experts in the case agreed in evidence that this study provided an accurate representation of the view impacts of the development from 22 Stanton Road (Ex 3, par 119).
4. WR1 found that (Ex O, p 88): "Given that the view analysis has identified that the proposal will have a negligible impact on views towards Middle Harbour, North Head, Middle Head and Balmoral Beach horizontally to an observer standing 1 metre from the living room window and adjacent balcony edge, I consider that a view sharing outcome is achieved and that the proposal, notwithstanding the building height breaching elements, is reasonable."
5. The above reference to "an observer standing 1 metre from the living room window and adjacent balcony edge" is a reference to the controls in MRDCP.
6. While I do not need to follow, in any precise way, particular development control plan provisions when evaluating the contravention of a local environmental plan's development standard, I do agree with WR1's conclusions here. Apart from what was readily observable to me on site, my reasons for this include that: (1) Council's expert (Ms Gordon) also agreed that the amended proposal was reasonable on view sharing terms and (2) a planning expert, engaged by the owners of 22 Stanton Road, who was present during the site view, was also satisfied with the amended proposal in regard to view sharing (Ex 9).
7. In regard to the maintenance of public views, WR1 noted the lower profile of the proposed building to its Stanton Road frontage. In agreeing with WR1s conclusion that public views are shared, I am aware of the agreement from Ms Gordon that the proposal "maintains appropriate view sharing from Stanton Road and from the public domain generally" (Ex 3, par 119).
8. WR1 has demonstrated that the first of the relevant wall height standard objectives to cl 4.3A of MLEP has been achieved.

To minimise the visual impact of buildings particularly when viewed from the harbour and surrounding foreshores

1. WR1 included photographic evidence showing the site and its backdrop when viewed from nearby Edwards Beach. It was argued that while it would be possible to discern the future building, it would sit in a non-jarring way within the context and what was described as the "Balmoral slopes amphitheatre". The proposed material and colour palette were argued to "minimise the visual prominence of the building height breaching elements and enable the development to blend into the natural and built form context" (Ex O, p 95).
2. Having had the opportunity to also view up towards the site from Edwards Beach, I accept WR1's arguments that the clause objectives relating to minimisation of visual impact when viewed from the harbour and surrounding foreshores would be achieved notwithstanding the contravention. The question of visual bulk, in regard to adjacent properties, is considered against the final objective.

To ensure that buildings are compatible with the desired future character of the area in terms of building height and roof form

1. WR1 referred to the "Balmoral Townscape" controls within MRDCP (Part 7.4(1)) for the evaluation of desired future character considerations. The main points raised in this section of MRDCP were, according to WR1, concerned with: "(maintaining) the architectural diversity of the area and (limiting) bulky mega dwelling houses with horizontal emphasis across allotments".
2. WR1 noted the single storey streetscape presentation to Stanton Road and argued that the proposal provided for a "complementary and compatible flat roof design with clerestory roof and a distinctly vertical building emphasis in response to the allotment width and topographical characteristics" (Ex O, p 96). WR1 noted that the proposed building height does increase as the site falls away steeply, but this was seen to be compatible with existing or recently approved development located within the site's visual catchment. A photograph was provided of the building at 1E Kirkoswald Avenue, diagonally opposite the site to the north-west, and a photomontage was provided showing the subject proposal alongside the existing building at 22 Stanton Road.
3. I agree that the proposal would generally sit comfortably in the Stanton Street streetscape in regard to its height and roof form. I also agree that when viewed from the south, the proposal would meet the desired future character having regard to the more recently developed buildings, including 22 Stanton Road. The central query here is the building's relationship with the property to the east which I turn to now.

To minimise the adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings

1. First, I would say that I can agree with WR1 that the bulk and scale impacts of the proposal would be acceptable as far as 22 Stanton Road is concerned given the relative heights of the building at 22 Stanton Road compared to that proposed and privacy screen treatments.
2. The most significant issue for the proposal is its relationship with 18 Stanton Road, with bulk and scale impacts the point of particular attention.
3. The view sharing outcome has already been considered and is not a consideration in regard to 18 Stanton Road. I also note the privacy treatments proposed for 18 Stanton Road at ground level, through hedging of a fixed height in the pool area (proposed Condition 9) and through the setting back of the balustrade of the upper level balcony and the side boundary setback more generally.
4. In respect of this neighbour to the east, it is argued in WR1 that the proposal would be reasonable in overshadowing terms with reasonable levels of solar access between 9am and 3pm mid-winter and that, with the amendments, there would be no unreasonable visual privacy impacts, and that the visual massing perceptions, after amendments, is not much greater than would be experienced now (ibid): "… the Level 3 southern façade and balcony/balustrade alignments proposed ensure that the bulk and scale of the non-compliant building height elements has been minimised as viewed from the upper level west facing bedroom window of No. 18 Stanton Road. Having inspected the height profiles from the rear yard of this adjoining property, I am satisfied that the bulk and scale of the non-compliant building height breaching elements do not give rise to inappropriate or jarring visual impacts given the relative height of adjoining development, the recessive nature of the Level 3 building height breaching elements relative to the Level 2 building façade below and the screening afforded by existing and proposed intervening landscape elements."

Consideration

1. Of most importance is the consideration of the direct impacts on 18 Stanton Road. It was important to me here that Ms Gordon generally agreed (in oral evidence) that the bulk and scale impacts of the (amended) proposal upon 18 Stanton Road were not unreasonable. Here she gave consideration to overshadowing, privacy and visual bulk. Mr Boston of course agreed. Considering this expert evidence, and the fact of the existing building massing at 20 Stanton Road (at quite similar and sometimes exceeding heights to that proposed), along with some scaling back of the upper level of the subject proposal to a closer alignment with that of the existing building, has brought me to the same conclusion. That is, that the bulk and scale impacts are reasonable in the circumstances, and that the stated objective of minimising adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings is achieved.
2. WR1 adequately demonstrates that the objectives of the development standard relating to building wall height have been achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the 7.2m control. In turn, and in accordance with the first Wehbe way, I find that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

Whether there are sufficient environmental planning grounds

1. WR1 argues that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. The grounds are somewhat dispersed throughout the written request. I will come to them below.
2. Consistent with my previous commentary, I will mention the view of Council's expert with respect to this topic. Ms Gordon did not believe that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. Ms Gordon's view was that it is, singly, the desire to "chase" a view over the top of 18 Stanton Road that is driving the design, which embodies "an excessively deep floor plate at Level 3" (Ex 3, par 102 and par 106 cited below). "In my opinion, the only reason for breaching the height controls in the manner proposed is to provide a deep floor plate at Level 3 so that the living area and private open space area obtain views to both the east and south, because other prop erties in the area have achieved this. This does not constitute sufficient environmental planning grounds for the breach of the height control."
3. Ms Gordon had a concern about wider effects and the public interest in retaining provisions of this kind into the future (Ex 3, par 107): "…such an approach, if continued on other sites into the future would effectively result in the abandonment of the height control provisions, with all subsequent applications using similar arguments to seek ever increasing breaches of the height controls."
4. Ms Gordon drew a link to cl 1.2 of MLEP which provides as follows: (a) to provide housing opportunities appropriate to environmental constraints while maintaining the existing residential amenity,
5. In closing submissions, Council also raised a previous judgment of mine, Jacobs v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 1232 (Jacobs), and the finding in that case that there were not sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify a contravention. Jacobs was concerned with an application for a secondary dwelling, which would be located within the backyard of an existing residential property. The circumstances were such that the proposal would involve a contravention of the maximum permissible floor space ratio standard under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012. In that case my finding was that, beyond the provision of private benefit, the written request's arguments in support of the contravention were generally concerned with proving up that the proposal would have nil or negligible adverse effects, at [49]. For me this was insufficient grounds in those circumstances.
6. In the case at hand, I believe that WR1 does demonstrate there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. While the arguments are dispersed through the document, when read together, it seems to me that WR1 is positing a line of argument comprising five inter-related planning grounds, particular to the case, which are sufficient in the circumstances.
7. First, is that it is reasonable to seek to provide for a substantial view corridor with proposal's for new homes or redevelopments in this setting. It is submitted that it is commonplace and it is reasonably expected that new homes will be designed for the harbour outlooks available in this Balmoral "amphitheatre". To this effect, eastern and south-eastern views are particularly sought after. It is argued that a redevelopment of 18 Stanton Road, which can be reasonably expected in this particular setting, would also seek to maximise its view. I agree that it is reasonable to seek out such an outcome, which of course only takes one so far.
8. Second, is that it is reasonable to seek to provide security for any obtained view corridor into the future. The site sits at an angle in Stanton Road. The angle is located at the boundary of 22 and 18 Stanton Road. East of the angle, the road reservation straightens to be more perpendicular to the eastern (harbour) views. While the angling of Stanton Road has, it is argued, assisted the sharing of eastern views between 24 and 22, and 22 and 20 (potentially), the straightening of Stanton Road at the boundary between 20 and 18 reduces that effect. Given (1) above, and the reasonable expectation of a redevelopment of 18 Stanton Road to seek to maximise its own outlook, then according to the Written Request, it is reasonable for a design at 20 Stanton Road to take some account of this, in view sharing terms ("future proofing view sharing") (Ex O, p 99). In my view, there are questions surrounding this planning ground, perhaps starting with the quality of the available views seeking to be secured and the otherwise consequences of the provision of such "security".
9. The third, fourth and fifth grounds are particularly interlinked, and I will consider them together when drawing my conclusion. The third is that the scale of the development is reasonable. It is argued that there is a compliant FSR, that the objects of the development standard have been achieved (which I have concurred with [45]) and that there has been some ratcheting back of the scale of proposal to something closer in massing to that which exists on the subject site at present (Ex O, p 100). "…the south-eastern corner of the level 3 glazed building façade and associated roof form has been setback to align with the southern rear wall of the existing dwelling house located on the subject property with the eastern return of the terrace balustrade in this location setback an additional 1 m beyond the projecting terrace slab to ensure that the balustrade will not be readily discernible as viewed from the ground floor eastern terrace area of the adjoining property."
10. Fourth, is that the design configuration is reasonable. At one level this is concerned with externalities such as what is seen to be reasonable side setbacks when compared to the existing. But I think of more pertinence here, in the consideration of "environmental planning grounds", is the internal design and particularly the intentions for the proposal's main living area to be located at the street level (or Level 3). Here I am mindful of earlier suggestions from Ms Gordon that the proposal scale back the extent of building footprint at Level 3, by swapping the living area with bedrooms at a lower level.
11. Fifth is that there are no unreasonable impacts associated with the proposal or contravention in particular. Something addressed in regard to the wall height contravention in that the objectives of the standard are achieved, and more widely in the narrowness of the contentions.
12. I note as well that WR1 also links in to the objects of the EP&A Act, mindful of Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [23]. It is argued that the proposal promotes good design and amenity of the built environment, in accordance with s 1.3(g) of the EP&A Act, by (Ex O, p 111): "…(representing) good contextually appropriate design affording exceptional levels of amenity whilst maintaining appropriate streetscape and residential amenity outcomes in particular a view sharing outcome with surrounding development. Consideration was given to the redistribution of the compliant quantum of floor space to achieve a greater level of compliance with the height of buildings standard however alternate schemes were not adopted as they did not achieve the same view sharing and residential amenity outcomes as achieved through adopting the building alignments and heights proposed."
13. It seems to me that the line of argument referenced above do provide a coherent set of planning grounds sufficient to justify the contravention. While there would be limits to instances where it might be seen as reasonable to use an argument relating to view protection as a means of justifying a height contravention, there are unusual circumstances at hand here. First, there is the quality of the views which are available. Second, is that it is factual that there is a bend in the street alignment at the corner of the boundary between 20 and 18 Stanton Road and the opportunity to share views "horizontally" has, in a sense, run out. Third, is that the actual impacts, including view loss to the west, and broader amenity concerns in regard to 18 Stanton Road, are not unreasonable. Fourth is related to the fact of achievement of the objectives of the standard. When I add the distinctly positive design feature allowing for a reasonable sized open living area at the street level, I am satisfied that the grounds outlined in WR1 are environmental planning grounds, aligned to s 1.3(g) of the EP&A Act, and in this case they are sufficient to justify the contravention. In my opinion these planning grounds are quite different from the setting I found in Jacobs.
14. Together, the above findings mean WR1 has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of MLEP. It follows that the test of cl 4.6(4)(a)(i) is satisfied in regard to the wall height contravention.

Public interest

1. I now turn to the test at cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of MLEP, and whether the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the wall height standard and the objectives for development within the R2 zone.
2. The interpretation of the word "consistent" has been a consideration in many judgments of the Court. Here, briefly, I accept the interpretation that the word consistent is synonymous with compatible (Addenbrooke Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 190 [45]).
3. I agree with and rely on WR1's demonstration that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the wall height standard as considered above.
4. The zone objectives are as follows: • To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. • To retain the single dwelling character of the environmentally sensitive residential areas of Mosman. • To maintain the general dominance of landscape over built form, particularly on harbour foreshores. • To ensure that sites are of sufficient size to provide for buildings, vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping and retention of natural topographical features. • To ensure that development is of a height and scale that seeks to achieve the desired future character. • To encourage residential development that maintains or enhances local amenity and, in particular, public and private views. • To minimise the adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings.
5. The proposal provides for a single dwelling house and as such is clearly consistent with the first and third objectives. I am satisfied that, with the proposed landscaping, and tree retention as proposed, the proposal is compatible with the fourth zone objective of maintaining the general dominance of landscape over built form. For the reasons outlined earlier, I am also satisfied that the proposal: (1) is of a height and scale that aligns with the desired future character, (2) reasonably maintains local amenity and public and private views, and (3) is consistent with the objective of minimising adverse effects of bulk and scale as a consequence. The second and fifth zone objectives are not relevant to this proposal. On the basis of the above I find the development consistent with the R2 zone objectives.
6. Based on my findings above, the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the wall height standard and the objectives for development within the R2 Low Density Residential zone of MLEP. On this basis, I am satisfied that the requirements of cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of MLEP are met in regard to the wall height contravention.

Conclusion - wall height contravention

1. I do not need the concurrence of the Planning Secretary under cl 4.6(4)(b) of MLEP but note that I have considered the matters in cl 4.6(5) in coming to my conclusions in regard to the contravention and find nothing of significance arises in regard to these matters.
2. With my findings at [59] and [65], the states of satisfaction required by cl 4.6 of MLEP have been reached and there is therefore power to grant development consent to the proposed development notwithstanding the breach of the wall height standard.

Building height contravention

1. The building height contravention is also greatest at the south-eastern corner of the Level 3 roof parapet at 2.39m or 28.1% above the 8.5m control. There is a contravention of 1.85m at the eastern end of the Level 3 north-facing clerestory roof element. Other details on the contravention are provided in WR2 (Ex O, p 2). Noteworthy here is that the proposal would have a generally flat roof with a clerestory element and pitched skylight, somewhat offset from the main external wall elements. It follows that the impacts from the wall height (considered above) will often be more critical than that of roof elements.

Whether compliance unreasonable or unnecessary

1. Similar to the particulars relating to the wall height contravention, WR2 seeks to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary using the first "Wehbe way" (ie that the development achieves the objectives of the standard, notwithstanding the contravention).
2. The objectives of cl 4.3 of MLEP are provided at [26].
3. There are similar arguments posited in WR2 supporting the achievement of the objectives of cl 4.3 of MLEP as those proposed with respect to the wall height contravention (cl 4.3A), and reasonably so. For the same reasons as outlined in regard to the consideration of WR1, I am satisfied that the relevant objectives are achieved in this instance. That is that, notwithstanding the contravention, the proposal achieves the objectives of: (1) providing for the sharing of public and private views, (2) minimising visual impact, particularly when viewed from the harbour and foreshores, (3) ensuring compatibility with the desired future character of the area in terms of building height and roof form, and (4) minimising the adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings.

Whether there are sufficient environmental planning grounds

1. Again reasonably in the circumstances, the environmental planning grounds posited in regard to the building height contravention (WR1) are more or less the same as those put forward in regard to the wall height contravention (WR2). Again I find them sufficient to justify contravention of in this case the building height standard.

Public interest

1. In consideration of the test at cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of MLEP, I can again refer to my findings when considering the contravention in relation to wall height. That is I have already found that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard (in this case the same objectives apply to both the wall height and building height standards) and the zone objectives.

Conclusion - building height contravention

1. The states of satisfaction required by cl 4.6 of MLEP have been reached and there is therefore power to grant development consent to the proposed development notwithstanding the breach of the building height standard.

View loss and bulk and scale

1. While raised individually by Council, I have examined the two contentions relating to view loss and the bulk and scale of the proposal quite directly in the consideration of the height contravention.
2. Based on the findings above, I am satisfied that the proposal is reasonable in terms of view loss and in regard to its bulk and scale.

Other objections

1. The objecting submissions commonly raised concerns about height, visual bulk and scale and, of course, view loss. These matters are addressed above in the body of the judgment. I have given consideration to the further submissions from neighbours, also mindful of the amendments to the proposal. The key matters are examined below.
2. The owners of 24 Stanton Road raised the issue of visual privacy. I note that the planning experts were satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Part 5.7 of MRDCP in relation to visual privacy (Ex 3, par 137). I am satisfied that the proposal would not provide an unreasonable outcome in visual privacy terms for 24 Stanton Road. My reasons are centred on the considerable distance attenuation which is available between the site and 24 Stanton Road and that it is reasonable to expect some loss of privacy will occur in settings such as this where householders are seeking to maximise views.
3. Loss of street parking was also of concern to neighbours, given high parking demand in local streets especially during peak times for the local beaches. I accept the advice of the traffic experts that the now proposed driveway layback at 4.5m (excluding wings) satisfactorily preserves on-street parking (Ex 5, par 8).
4. Concerns were also raised in relation to tree loss and planting. In particular there was a concern about the potential loss of Tree 7, of high landscape significance (Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Ex D, p 11) due to swimming pool encroachment and associated retaining walls. The arboricultural and planning experts are in agreement that the proposed changes to landscaping, including retaining walls and steps, and as embodied in conditions (particularly proposed Condition 9) mean there will be no unreasonable encroachment into Tree 7's protection zone (Ex 6, par 7).
5. Proposed landscaping was also seen to have potential to impinge on views from neighbouring properties or cause inconvenience through dropping of foliage. Revisions to landscape plans (replacing some of the taller species in the back yard), coupled with conditions of consent, have, according to direct oral evidence, satisfied the planning experts that views will be satisfactorily protected and no unreasonable inconvenience will occur to neighbouring properties related to maintenance and the like. I accept this opinion.
6. The neighbour to the south also raised concerns in regard to stormwater. I have been informed on the stormwater management system which splits outflows between Stanton Road and Edwards Bay Road and provides for an absorption system and spreader to address any problems of concentration of flows (Ex 4, par 14) and associated stormwater plans (Ex G). I accept the position of Council's expert that the proposed arrangement is satisfactory.

Conclusions

1. In accordance with the above findings, it is appropriate that the application be approved with consent conditions, as agreed between the parties (without prejudice on Council's part) and referenced in the Orders below.

Orders

1. The Court orders that: 1. The written request seeking to justify the contravention of the height of buildings development standard at cl 4.3 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming and dated 25 March 2021, is upheld. 2. The written request seeking to justify the contravention of the wall height development standard at cl 4.3A of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming and dated 25 March 2021, is upheld. 3. Development application No. 8.2020.164.1 for the demolition of a dwelling house and ancillary structures, tree removal, construction of a new dwelling house, double garage, swimming pool, and landscaping works is approved subject to the conditions included at Annexure A. 4. The Exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibits 1, E-G and L-O.

Commissioner of the Court Annexure A (374306, pdf) Landscape Plan (1943898, pdf) Schedule of Amendments (179392, pdf) Architectural Plans_Part1 (10277533, pdf Architectural Plans_Part 2 (2368279, PNG) Architectural Plans_Part3 (23326579, pdf) Architectural Plans_Part 4 (3381908, PNG) Architectural Plans_Part5 (20963557, pdf) Architectural Plans_Part6 (12528019, pdf) Architectural Plans_Part7 (18525578, pdf) Architectural Plans_Part8 (5806342, pdf)

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 27 April 2021