© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] NSWLEC 197
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
1996-12-11
McEwen AJ, Bryson J, Talbot J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The applicant submits that a photograph taken in Pittwater Road looking in a northerly direction showing a structure on the subject site, when coupled with the aerial photographs from 1943 and 1951, demonstrate that the structure (which is some five or so metres back from Pittwater Road) is elevated by about two metres. That would be so so long as the structure is not a two storey building. Along the southern side of that building is a driveway, and the roofline/structure of the building can be seen in aerial photographs up to 1965; vehicles can be seen to be parked in that driveway in the 1956 aerial photograph. If this is so, given the height of cars parked in Pittwater Road, it suggests that the building at the front of the lot close to Pittwater Road was in all probability a two storey structure or at least one which had added height for some particular purpose.
When the presently existing buildings on the site were constructed (some time between 1965 and 1972 according to the aerial photographs), there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the rear of the site needed excavation for the construction of what now exists to the rear along the south western boundary of the site, as offices built on piers. To the contrary, the construction having been built on piers is strong evidence that there was no excavation.
Whilst the aerial photographs provide an interesting history of the site, and one can discern various structures appearing and being replaced, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions from the alterations in those photographs as one is left without any indication of levels. In this regard it has been most unfortunate, given the amount of time and argument devoted to discovering what the natural ground level was, that a photogrammetrist was not engaged to produce readings of relative levels, from those aerial photographs. Were this done, a simple correlation from those readings with the present levels would have told us what has happened, at least since 1943.
To accept either Mr Camillo's or Mr Player's estimate one needs to conclude that an inordinate amount of topsoil was removed from the site for the purpose of its development at different times. For Mr Camillo some three and half to four metres of topsoil over approximately three quarters of the site would need to be removed, and for Mr Player about a one and a half metres depth of topsoil over the same area. No practical rationale, or economic reason, was (or in my view could be) advanced as to why such a large volume of topsoil would be excavated from this site, to enable the construction of otherwise modest structures.
In my view the evidence only permits a conclusion of some excavation at the front of the site of about one metre, or perhaps up to one and a half metres. If there has been disturbance of the rear of the site, it has been minor.
This leads to the reading of the number of storeys more closely in accord with the approach of Mr Sanders, notwithstanding the allowance of some excavation at the front of the block. With that excavation the proposal would still be calculated at seven storeys. However the "wedges" of exceedence of the six storey limit are two sections of the car park where the area which offends is approximately half a storey (about 1.5 metres because of the height of the street level car park) at its maximum.
Given the compliance of the proposal with the maximum height limit, other matters considered in relation to the merits of the design, the bulk of the structure, and the planning constraints, I do not regard this exceedence as either determinative, or fatal to the application. (iii) Planning controls - development standards
As previously mentioned, due to the operation of cl 5(2) of WLEP 2000, the relevant LEP is WLEP 1985, and whilst DCP 24 has been replaced by WLEP 2000, it (DCP 24) has provided the policies and standards against which the proposal has been assessed. Raised as a discrete issue was the question of compliance with those policies and standards.
The assessment also however is in the context of WLEP 2000 being treated as "exhibited but not made", although given the weight which the Council has placed on WLEP 2000 both in the identification of the issues, and the analysis of the proposal under those issues one could be forgiven for thinking that the planning regime had been reversed, and with the 2000 Plan being the controlling and dominant instrument.
Clause 4 of DCP 24 provides: …before granting consent for development Council must be satisfied that
(a) the development conforms with the General Principles of Development Control and
(b) the development is consistent with the Desired Future Character described in the relevant Locality Statement
The general principles of development control in the DCP are many and various - to be found under the headings "Miscellaneous, Public Domain, Site Planning and Building Design, Traffic Access and Parking, and Soil and Water Management".
The DCP indicates how locality statements which identify desired future character are to assist (see par 22 and 23 above).
Mr Sanders, expressed the view that the proposal was neither consistent with the General Principles of development control nor with the Desired Future Character of the locality, whilst for the applicant Mr Player, Mr Camillo, and Mr Harrison were all of the view that there was compliance with both the General Principles and the Desired Future Character. Weighing the opinions of all of these experts, and with the benefit of a view of the site coupled with the photo montages which were in evidence, I have concluded that the proposal, rather than not being consistent with these controls, and notwithstanding the arguments in relation to the numerical requirements of the built form, both satisfy the General Principles and the objectives of the Desired Future Character. (iv) Design and bulk
The issues which can be subsumed within this heading concern the height of the proposal, number of storeys, and building mass.
Mr Sanders conceded that due to the relationship between the subject site and the Park, any development within the numerical constraints of either WLEP 1985, or WLEP 2000, will be "relatively prominent, particularly the north eastern elevation which adjoins the park" however the present proposal is in his view insufficiently set back, insufficiently stepped in its upper storeys, and overall its height bulk and scale as it presents both to the Park and to Pittwater Road is excessive. In the context of the exceedence of the storey control by one storey he is of the view that the Building Mass control in DCP 24 is exceeded on the three top storeys of the proposal.
The spring board for Mr Sanders' opinion is his calculation of the number of storeys being seven, rather than six. As I have indicated earlier, those portions of the car parking levels which cause the building to count as seven storeys are not whole floors, but portions which whilst counted as storeys under the definition, ought not be given the weight attributed to them by Mr Sanders. It was demonstrated in evidence that the number of storeys within the building envelope can be reduced merely by a design change (exhibit K2), there being another example of this method of rearranging levels such as to avoid the counting of "a storey" (namely the plans for the redevelopment of the Grand Reef building, to be known as Dee Why Stroll, exhibit 14).
In further answer to this complaint the applicant says that if the subject site were developed for commercial purposes, all with mezzanine floors, a proposal could comply with the six storey control and yet be built higher than the present proposal and up to the 24 metre maximum height limit. Mr Player gave evidence that an additional residential storey could be added to the proposal and it would still comply with the 24 metre building height limit under DCP 24. Whilst Mr Tobias submitted that this "envelope" of possible maximum of development did not provide for or demonstrate the "wedding cake" massing control for the top three storeys, nonetheless the proposal and overall height is lower than that which could have been applied for. Further, the complaint made by Mr Sanders as to the exceedence of the building mass control only has validity because the proposal counts as seven and not six storeys; if it counted as six storeys (ie if for present purposes one ignored the basement level), then the proposal substantially complies with the requirements of the control. Mr Harrison said it was unclear why Mr Sanders did not accept that the Building Mass control was complied with; in his view it did.
The design of the building is described as providing a "four storey podium with a coherent parapet line along Pittwater Road wrapping around to the St Davids Park north eastern elevation". The design provides for the stepping back of the upper levels with the facades to St Davids Avenue being both indented and stepped. The facades both onto Pittwater Road and fronting St Davids Avenue Park are broken and well articulated, and incorporate an interesting mix and blend of materials and finishes. Mr Camillo the architect describes his objective of rearranging the features of the facades to achieve a "…cohesive blend of shadow, shade and texture". His opinion that the relevant element of the desired future character statement is complied with, is supported by both Mr Player and Mr Harrison, and I accept that evidence.
As Mr Hemmings submits, the visual impact of the proposal needs to be assessed not only in light of what exists in the immediate environs of the proposal, but also in the context of the expected future development both adjoining the subject site, and within the precinct.
I have already mentioned the draft plans being prepared for Parkview Farm Pty Limited for the adjoining lot to the south.
Much time in evidence was devoted to six other development sites in the commercial area of Dee Why - the Kallista building at 637-641 Pittwater Road, the Benchmark building at 645-647 Pittwater Road, the Topland building on the corner of Dee Why Parade and Pittwater Road, the Grand Reef building at 610 Pittwater Road and Howard Avenue, the Dee Why Hotel on the corner of Pittwater Road and Sturdee Parade and finally the Dee Why Fruit World site at the corner of Sturdee Parade and Delmar Parade West. These were examples of either structures recently completed, or the subject of consents which in all probability would be commenced in a relatively short period of time. They were analysed by Mr Player in his statement of evidence, and demonstrated he said that the traditional low rise two - four storey commercial buildings in Dee Why were being replaced by medium rise six - seven storey mixed retail/commercial and apartment buildings which had strong vertical proportions and stepped facades. For present purposes I don't regard it necessary to analyse these sites in the detail with which they were pursued in evidence. Cumulatively they demonstrate that the Council has continued to exercise a feasible approach and a considerable degree of discretion in applying the standards in its planning instrument and policies; the present application is no different. Mr Tobias submitted that the present application was distinguished from these examples by significant departures from the standards in the instant application; he argued that the present proposal ought be lowered to reduce its mass. In my opinion that is unnecessary; the exceedences or departures in some of the examples were for greater than what is proposed here.
There is however one aspect of Mr Player's evidence which I should mention. In cross-examination Mr Tobias demonstrated to Mr Player that a particular control exceedence in relation to the Topland building had not been described with sufficient accuracy by him in his evidence. As to the Benchmark development it was suggested that Mr Player's analysis did not candidly reveal the background to that proposal. In the context of the use that was being made of these examples, this criticism of Mr Player was pedantic. It certainly was not a sufficient foundation for the submission put that he had played "fast and loose" with the evidence, and I reject that submission.
Mr Harrison, part author of the 1993 strategy, was engaged by the applicant to provide an independent assessment of the proposal in the context of the 1993 Strategy, the 1997 Study, and the DCP's objectives, Mr Harrison was of the view that the proposal was entirely consistent with those earlier visions, and the relevant objectives. Given that the probable redevelopment in the surrounding environs will be within the 24 metre height constraint, the proposal will in his view "fit well". I agree with that conclusion.
The question of access from a planning point of view has been adequately addressed, and the issue as to legality of access and the availability of access is deferred to another time. As to the merit matters argued, notwithstanding the exceedence of the storey control, I am of the view that the proposal meets the relevant principles and desired objectives for future local character, and in particular the overall vision enunciated for the development of the Dee Why shopping precinct. The impacts which will flow from construction of the development are not such as to warrant its refusal. If constructed in accordance with the plans and described finishes, the development in my view will add a positive element to the revitalisation of the shopping centre, and present not just as an acceptable, but attractive structure.
As to conditions the Council submitted that a deferred commencement condition was inappropriate, for the reason that the application should be rejected until both the legality of access, and the achieving of actual access, in relation to the triangle, was obtained. For reasons I have already referred to, such an approach is in my view unwarranted.
Council had drafted a deferred commencement condition which required, before the operation of the consent, an LEP to permit development over the triangle, the granting of consent for the use of the triangle for that purpose, and then the registration of a right of carriageway over it. The consent was to be predicated on the applicant being able to comply with those requirements within two years of the date of the consent. Mr Hemmings submitted and I accept, that this approach is unduly restrictive and unnecessary. Nor Mr Hemmings submitted was it appropriate for the conditions to recite that the consent did not grant approval to use of the Park or triangle. Although that land forms no part of the application, Mr Hemmings did not resile from the argument that it was within the Court's power to approve the application for use of the triangle for access purposes (Sydney City Council v Claude Neon Ltd (1989) 67 LGRA 181 at 186, Shellharbour Municipal Council v Rovilo Pty Ltd (1989) 68 LGRA 231 at 237). However this approach takes the argument back to a consideration of issues 1A and 1B, which were disposed of (other than for planning implications) by withdrawal of the triangular portion of land as part of the application.
The deferred commencement conditions drafted by Council were objected to by the applicant. However their deletion Mr Tobias submitted would lead to a consent enabling construction of the building such that upon completion the applicant would "hold a gun at the head" of the Council, to force the granting of an easement. The same would apply, he submitted, if the consent was conditioned on the obtaining of an occupation certificate, post construction.
Rather than allow circumstances to arise which may be the spring board for further argument between the parties it appears in my view preferable for a form of deferred commencement to issue, albeit with a condition which triggers the operation of the consent upon the obtaining of legal access by way of either a right of way or a transfer of the land itself.
CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CONSENT No 701 Pittwater Road, Dee Why DA No 2000/5096
A. Conditions of deferred commencement required to be satisfied prior to the consent operating.
$224 Open Space Links and Cycleway ( 6901) $42 Childrens Facilities (6902) $3920 Libraries (6903) $4060 Sport Field Establishment (69040 $4732 Administration and Studies (6922) $4326 Community Facilities (6906) $83048 Local Open Space (6912) $3024 Roads and Traffic (6915) $370 Office (6924) $103,660 Total Calculated using 14 units; 144 Sq M Office These amounts have been calculated using the Warringah Section 94 Contribution Plan 2001 adopted 22/5/2001 effective 1st June 2001 . They are current at the time of issue of this Consent. They are current at the time of issue of this Consent. They will be adjusted at the time of payment according to the quarterly CPI (Sydney-All Groups Index). An updated schedule of Council's contribution rates is issued each quarter and is available at Council's offices. Please ensure that you provide details of this Consent when paying contributions so that they can be easily recalculated. 34. Hoardings and child proof fencing to residential properties shall be installed to prior to construction/demolition commencing, and shall remain in place for the duration of the work. No construction access is permitted other than at the approved vehicle crossing/s into Pittwater Road. All loading, unloading and storage of materials for works within the site shall take place within the hoarding enclosure. (C87) 35. The on-site stormwater detention facility to control the rate of stormwater runoff from the site to be in accordance with Warringah Council's publication "On-Site Stormwater Detention - Technical Specification, March 1998". (C68) 36. All works on the site shall be undertaken to prevent erosion and transport of soil and sediment off the site and onto adjoining properties. Measures shall be taken in accordance with the requirements of Warringah Council's Specification for Erosion and Sediment Control and shall be submitted to the council or certifier prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. (C41) 37. Provision shall be made throughout the period of construction to prevent transmission of soil to the public road and drainage system by vehicles leaving the site. (C44) 38. Construction of footpath paving consisting of pavers in accordance with Council's standard specifications for engineering works. (C84) 39. Hoardings shall be installed to prior to construction/demolition commencing, and shall remain in place for the duration of the work. No construction access is permitted other than at the approved vehicle crossing/s . All loading, unloading and storage of materials for works within the site shall take place within the hoarding enclosure. or alternatively in a dedicated construction zone approved by Council in St Davids Avenue for the purpose of loading and unloading materials. (C87) 40. Payment to Warringah Council of a $10,000 bond as security against damage to Council's roads caused by the transport and disposal of materials and equipment to and from the site to Account No.009 TF037. This amount to be paid prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate and to be verified by the accredited certifier. (C108) 41. All construction and restoration work on Council's road and footpath area are to be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved drawings and Council's Standard Specifications. (C110) 42. The developer/applicant is to obtain a Road Opening Permit and pay all appropriate charges prior to commencement of any work on Council property. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for all public utilities and services in the area of his work, and as such shall notify all relevant Authorities, and bear all costs associated with any repairs and/or adjustments as those Authorities may deem necessary. (C113) 43. Lighting, fencing, traffic control and advanced warning signs shall be provided for the protection of the works and for the safety and convenience of the public and others, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, and in accordance with Council's Standard specifications for engineering works. Traffic movement in both directions on public roads, and vehicular access to private properties is to be maintained at all times during the currency of the works. (C117) 44. Other than with respect to the dedicated Construction Zone referred to in Condition 39 above, footpaths and roadways are to be kept free of obstruction by building materials and plant and concrete trucks, pumps and/or agitators are to be kept within the building site. No concrete or slurry being discharged onto Council's street surfaces. (C321) 45. Provision of a hoarding to the frontage of the property. A separate application to be made to Council for this purpose. This hoarding is to be erected before any work is commenced on site. (C341) 46. The payment of $5,000 to account Reg 009 - *TF 036 prior to issue of a construction certificate as security to ensure that: a) all silt and sediment control measures are installed and maintained; b) there is no transmission of material, soil etc off the site and onto the public road and/or drainage systems; and c) maintenance of all facilities in accordance with Council's Specification for Erosion Control and Sediment Control. (C42) 47. Creation of a Positive Covenant on the title of the land requiring the proprietor of the land to maintain any water quality control and/or stormwater detention structures required by this Consent, in accordance with the standard requirements of Council. The Positive Covenant is to be prepared by the applicant using terms acceptable to, and which are available from Warringah Council. (C51) 48. Where any conditions of this Consent require dedication, consolidation, easement or covenant, the number allocated by the Land Titles Office to the documents and/or plans referred to shall be advised in writing to Warringah Council, together with a letter of intent to proceed with the Positive Covenant prior to occupation. A certified copy of the documents shall be provided to Warringah Council after final approval and registration has been effected by the Land Titles Office. (C57) 49. An application is to be made to Sydney Water in accordance with the provisions of Division 9, Section 73 of the Water Board Corporation Act 1994 and notice of requirements obtained prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. (C58) 50. Provision of 1 vehicle crossing, 6.0 metres wide in accordance with Warringah Council Drawing No.A4-3330 to approved levels and specifications. An application for street levels is to be made prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. (C89) 51. Construction of approved kerb laybacks in accordance with the details shown on Warringah Council Plan A4-2276. (C90) 52. Prior to finalising detailed designs of the proposed development, the applicant should check all existing public service utilities adjacent to the site and ensure that where necessary appropriate arrangements are made for the relocation and/or adjustment of any services at the applicant's expense. (C96) 53. The requirements of condition ending in code C68 shall be designed and supervised during the works by an Engineer with qualifications and expertise recognised by the Institute of Engineers Australia as being adequate for the purpose. The Engineer shall certify prior to occupation or release of Linen Plan of Subdivision that the works have been completed strictly in accordance with the approved design and to appropriate standards of workmanship. (C98) 54. With respect to condition ending in code C68, design details, computations and/or support documentation shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate and to satisfy the above conditions prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (C99) 55. Council's Development Engineer is to be given 24 hours notice when the works reach the following stages a) Subgrade level/basecourse level/footpath paving NOTE: Any inspections carried out by Council do not imply Council approval or acceptance of the work, and do not relieve the developer/applicant from the requirement to provide an engineer's certification as conditioned above. Council approval or acceptance of any stage of the work must be obtained in writing, and will only be issued after completion of the work to the satisfaction of Council and receipt of the required certification. (C127)
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.
Songkal Pty Limited
Warringah Council
CITATION : Songkal Pty Limited v Warringah Council [2001] NSWLEC 197 APPLICANT Songkal Pty Limited PARTIES : RESPONDENT Warringah Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10266 of 2001 CORAM: McEwen AJ Development Application :- Owners consent KEY ISSUES: non planning matters not a bar to grant of development consent access - bulk and scale - deferred commencement Conveyancing Act 1919, s 88K LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 78A, s 79C Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994, cl 46 Buckoke v Greater London Council [1971] 1 Ch. 655; Currey v Sutherland Shire Council and Anor (1997) 92 LGERA 85; Grace Bros Pty Ltd v Willoughby Municipal Council (1981) 44 LGRA 400; Jeblon Pty Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council (1982) 48 LGRA 113; Marshall and Anor v The Council of the City of Wollongong [2000] NSWSC 137, Bryson J, unreported; Marshall v Blackpool Corporation [1935] AC 16; CASES CITED: North Sydney Council v Ligon 302 Pty Limited (1996) 185 CLR 470; Parramatta City Council and Anor v Hale and Ors (1983) 47 LGRA 319; Remath Investments No 6 Pty Ltd v Botany City Council (No 2) (Talbot J, NSWLEC, 11 December 1996, unreported); Shellharbour Municipal Council v Rovilo Pty Ltd (1989) 68 LGRA 231; Songkal Pty Ltd v Warringah Council (2000) 111 LGERA 71; Sydney City Council v Claude Neon Ltd (1989) 67 LGRA 181; Weal v Bathurst City Council and Anor (2000) 111 LGERA 181 DATES OF HEARING: 23/07/2001, 24/07/2001, 25/07/2001, 26/07/2001 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/24/2001
(1997) 92 LGERA 85
(1996) 185 CLR 470
(2000) 111 LGERA 71
(2000) 111 LGERA 181
(2000) 111 LGERA 446
(1998) 97 LGERA 389