Residential Lifestyles Pty Ltd v Warringah Council

Residential Lifestyles Pty Ltd v Warringah Council - [2005] NSWLEC 250 - NSWLEC 2004 case summary — Zoe

[86]

Nevertheless, in accordance with the last bullet point of cl 66 of LEP 2000, "appropriate landscape plantings are to be provided to reduce a visual bulk" of the proposed building as seen from the lane. The landscaping is to be provided in accordance with the landscaped plan (ex J) and detailed conditions of consent in annexure A to this judgment. The proposed setback ground floor varies: facing Violet Lane near the corner of Starkey Street, the setback is 2.2 metres, and at this location on the subject site, two existing trees will be retained; and a further tree is to be retained near the lane boundary in the wider front setback from Starkey Street. Moving westward along Violet Lane, the ground-floor structure will still be about 2.2 m from the lane; however, the front part of two carparking spaces will project out beyond the main line of the northern façade of the ground floor, and Gymea lilies (growing to a height of 1.5 metres) are proposed in the relatively narrow space between the front of the car spaces and the lane. If there had been a series of three or four more car spaces with a similar setback, I think that this would have been unacceptable. However, immediately to the west of these two carparking spaces, the setback of the ground floor from the lane increases to 4.3 m for a further distance westward of 4.8 metres. This significant indent of the built form allows for a pathway from the lane to the stairway or lift of the proposed development and for landscaping containing a White cedar with a mature height of 6-8 m. Because of the adjusted floor level of the carpark, now proposed at RL 125.7, it was the opinion of both the arborist landscape experts for the parties that there would be adequate provision for the roots of this tree on the land in the indented section of the proposed building and that the roots could extend under the carpark slab. Immediately to the west of the side footpath entrance, the setback to the ground-floor wall is 3.6 m for a length along the lane of about 5.5 m, which will be landscaped: first, a planter with Gymea lilies will extend from the ground floor wall towards the lane by 1.2 metres containing Gymea lilies underneath the overhanging first-floor balcony (a drip-watering system for the landscaping generally is required by a condition of consent); secondly, in front of a planter bed, uncovered by any structure above it, there will be sufficient ground area for another White cedar tree to be planted. Moving further to the west is the 6-m wide entrance to the carpark. Finally, for the last 7.6 m along the lane frontage, between the carpark entrance and the north-western corner of the subject land, the setback is 2.2 m, which contains an existing Tasmanian blue gum near the corner, and a new tree is proposed to be planted centrally in this setback area; ground-cover shrubs and Lilly pillies are also proposed.

[105]

An aspect of the proposed development that is not ideal is that there is no pathway on the southern side of Violet Lane either within the road reserve or on the subject land itself, leading from the proposed pedestrian entrance at Violet Lane proceeding along the northern boundary of the subject land to the footpath in Starkey Street. Issue 3(h) refers to this (par 5 above), and it was the subject of criticism by the panel who conducted the independent public hearing. It is not possible to put a footpath within the road reserve on the southern side of the lane, because the carriageway would then be too restricted. If necessary, a pathway could be constructed immediately inside the northern boundary of the subject land proceeding east to the footpath in Starkey Street, but this new footpath would result in the removal of two and possibly three existing trees and the removal of the proposed strip of landscaping separating parking spaces 13 and 14 from the lane. However, it was the applicant's case (not disputed by the council) that there is a footpath on the northern side of Violet Lane, so that a person walking from the shopping centre could turn right from Starkey Street and walk westward along that footpath in the lane for about 20 m and then cross over to the proposed side entrance. For a person coming out of that entrance from the adjoining stairs or lift, there would be good visibility to any cars travelling in the lane because of the low agapanthus plants proposed on either side of the entrance-path; the person could then cross the lane to the public pathway on the northern side. For a person in a wheelchair, it seems an appropriate, convenient and safe way of entering the proposed building would be along the wider footpath in Starkey Street to the main entrance at the Starkey Street frontage; the disabled person would then have to proceed through part of the carpark to the lift. Other patients could also use this main entrance. This main entrance would not have the same pleasant amenity as could be the case if upon passing through a ground floor entrance the person was already within the vestibule or waiting room of the dental practice; but this is not a sufficient reason in my opinion to refuse the application. While from safety point of view it might be better to separate, if possible, the main entrance altogether from the carparking, only part of the carpark has to be traversed, and the risk to patients would be no greater than if patients were to park elsewhere in the carpark and then have two walk from their cars to the lift or stairs. Although in a smaller development a better design could be provided, there was little evidence from a safety point of view against approving the development with the present arrangements.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (127 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (3)

Cited By (2)