Tonoli v Rappo

The applicant's contentions and the evidence. 5 The applicant purchased his property in May 2006. The property is one of four dwellings (two dual occupancies) in a development approved in 2003 under State Environmental Planning Policy No 5 - Housing for Older People or People with a Disability. 6 The rear of the applicant's dwelling faces generally north. The respondents' property forms the northern boundary of the SEPP 5 development. In the application, the applicant states that the hedge was 2.5 to 3m high when he purchased the property. 7 The windows said to be affected by the hedge are W1 - glass sliding doors from the living room (on the northern side of the dwelling), W2 - glass sliding doors from the dining room that face east, W3 a north-facing window from the dining room and W4 the north-facing kitchen window. There is a polycarbonate awning between W1 and W2. It is noted that glass sliding doors are deemed to be windows for the purpose of the Act (s 3). 8 W1 is approximately 8m from the dividing fence and W3 and W4 are about 5.5m from the fence. The fence is 2.1m high. The level of the paving at the rear of the dwelling is approximately 1m below the original soil level at the base of the fence. There is a terraced garden bed along the northern boundary of the applicant's property but no plants are higher than the fence. 9 The garden wall that separates the applicant's property from the neighbouring attached dwelling to the east is about 1.9m high and the wall to the west is 2.5m high. 10 The applicant states that when he and his wife moved in they had sun in winter that penetrated some metres into the living and dining rooms and now they receive no sun from early May until late August although they receive sun at other times of the year. The applicant did not provide any shadow diagrams to support this contention.