Abdul-Rahman v Burwood Council

[2016] NSWLEC 1053

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Abdul-Rahman v Burwood Council [2016] NSWLEC 1053
Hearing dates:	27 January 2016
Date of orders:	16 February 2016
Decision date:	16 February 2016
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Morris C
Decision:	Appeal upheld (see para 54 for modified Order)
Catchwords:	Orders, impact of unauthorised works on heritage conservation area
Legislation Cited:	Burwood Local Environmental Plan 2012
Texts Cited:	Burwood Development Control Plan
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Omar Abudul-Rahman (Applicant)   Burwood Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Ms A Spizzo Landerer and Company (Applicant) Mr S Shneider Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	10877 of 2015

Judgment

1. Burwood Council has issued an Order under the provisions of Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&AAct) to Mr Abdul-Rahman in relation to unauthorised building works on his land. He is appealing the provisions of that Order.

The site and its context

2. The site is legally described as Lot 2 in DP 950492 known as 2 Culdees Road, Burwood Heights. It is located on the eastern side of the road and has a frontage of 30.29m and site area of 1366 m². The site is occupied by a two storey dwelling with attached garage, workshop, loft, gardens and swimming pool.

Background

3. The Order the subject of this appeal was issued by the Council on 3 September 2015 and is in the following terms:

Council orders you, pursuant to the said Act, to restore the premises to be condition they were before works were unlawfully carried out by:

1. Demolishing the laundry/bathroom addition to the rear of the existing garage;

2. Demolishing the skylight that was installed to the front elevation of dwelling and restoring to the original condition;

3. Demolishing the front sandstone fence located at the front boundary line;

4. Demolishing and restoring the driveway and hard stand surface area to original condition.

4. A period of 28 days was given for compliance with the Order.

5. The appeal against the Order was filed on 13 October 2015 and a conciliation conference held on 11 November 2015 presided over by another Commissioner of this Court. The conciliation conference was terminated on 16 December 2015.

6. On 19 November 2015 Mr Abdul-Rahman lodged a Building Certificate Application with the Council. That application related to the laundry, fence, hard stand and skylight. The Council, on 15 January 2016, issued a Building Certificate in relation to the laundry and skylight only.

7. On 25 November 2015 Mr Abdul-Rahman lodged a Development Application with the Council. That application sought consent for the use of the laundry and out building and use of the fence and skylight. Development consent was granted on 15 January 2016 by the Council to regularise the unauthorised addition of laundry and skylight to the existing dwelling only.

8. The parties agree that the council’s action in relation to the grant of the building certificate and development consent for the laundry and skylight require revocation of that part of the Order that relates to those elements, that is, items 1 and 2 of the Order.

9. As the result of those decisions, the matter now before the Court relates to the front boundary fence and hard stand area.

The works

10. The front boundary fence as ultimately proposed and shown on the plans, Exhibit A, would comprise a sandstone base varying in height from 700 mm to 1.08 m with a 250 mm high timber picket fence bars with 500 mm wide sandstone pillars separating those picket sections and defining driveway and pedestrian gateways. The height of those pillars vary from 1.615 m to 1.68 m.

11. Ms Spizzo, for the applicant, advised that the plans were in error and that the height of the timber infill was in fact proposed to be up to the underside of the capping on the pillars. That capping is approximately 50mm in depth so the height of the timber panels would be up to 700mm.

12. The hardstand area comprises the area to the north of the dwelling house and forward of the existing garage including the introduction of a relocated driveway crossing. Prior to the works being undertaken, vehicular access to the garage was from a curved driveway accessed further to the south and constructed from crushed gravel.

The planning controls

13. The site is zoned R2 Under the provisions of the Burwood Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP). Pursuant to Schedule 5 of the LEP, the site is included within the Badminton Road to Culdees Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). Clause 5.10 applies to Heritage Conservation and the clause has the following objectives:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Burwood,

(b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

(d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

14. Burwood Development Control Plan (DCP) applies to the site with Part 4.7 - Heritage in Residential Precincts particularly relevant to the application. The controls in Part 4.5 are general controls that apply to dwelling houses, attached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and ancillary structures with sections 4.5.3.9 applying to landscaped areas and 4.5.3.11 to drainage. The objectives of those parts are as follows:

Landscaped Areas

O1    To ensure functional private outdoor spaces are provided for residents.

O2    To encourage the preservation and integration of existing trees and natural features into the design of new development.

O3   To screen and soften the impact of buildings and improve the view along the street.

O4   To maximise winter sun and minimise summer sun.

O5   To help minimise stormwater runoff.

Drainage

O1    To ensure that new development does not result in flooding issues on the site or adjacent properties.

15. The objectives of the Heritage controls as detailed in section 4.7.2 are:

O1    To support the retention of heritage properties and maintain their heritage significance.

O2    To ensure that alterations or additions to heritage properties are sympathetic to the heritage significance of the property and in keeping with its character.

O3    To ensure that any alterations or additions to heritage properties reflect the predominant scale, height, proportion, character and setbacks of the existing property, and surrounding development.

O4   To ensure that development located in the vicinity of a heritage item is designed and sited in a manner sympathetic to the significance of the heritage property and its setting.

16. Detailed objectives and controls apply to fences on heritage properties as follows:

Objectives

O1    To ensure that original and historically significant fences and gates are retained.

O2    To ensure that new fences are sympathetic to the character of the heritage property.

O3    To ensure new fences are in keeping with the period and style of the building.

O4   To ensure that new fences are designed to complement the streetscape.

Provisions

Fence Character and Design

P1   The removal of any fencing on a heritage property is not permitted without prior Council consent, unless it is exempt development.

P2   Original fences must be retained and repaired.

P3   Where it can be demonstrated that P2 above cannot be achieved and the original fence must be replaced, this fencing must be reconstructed with matching materials to match the original fencing.

P4   In the first instance, the design of new fencing should relate to the period and style of the building upon that property.

P5   Where new fencing is proposed in an established or heritage streetscape, the fencing must reflect the character, materials, height, rhythm of bays and openings, design and colour of the predominant fence design.

P6   Fencing details (including the plinth wall, pedestrian gates, support piers, driveways, gates and metal railings) must be compatible with the overall character and design of the fence.

P7   Fencing must be stepped to comply with maximum fence heights and to reflect the gradient (slope) of the land.

P8    Electric lights or light mechanisms are not permitted on any part of a heritage fence as they are not traditional features. Up lights and down lights, where appropriately positioned and concealed from public view, may be considered as an acceptable alternative for lighting a fence structure.

Height of Front Boundary Fences

P9   The maximum height of open-style (e.g. timber picket) front boundary fencing is 1.2m above the adjacent footpath level. Where a fence is to be provided with a base course, this solid portion of the fence should not exceed a third of the overall fence height.

P10   The maximum height of solid or masonry front boundary fencing is 900mm above the adjacent footpath level.

P11   Only where associated with a Victorian period house, the maximum height of palisade-style front boundary fencing is 1.7m above the adjacent footpath level. For the avoidance of doubt, fences upon non-Victorian properties are generally restricted to 1.2m in height, and the use of metal bars or palisade fencing is not supported.

P12   Proposals to exceed the height limits (including piers) as outlined in P9, P10 and P11 above, must prove that the fence height corresponds and accords with the architectural style of the heritage property and/or continues an established pattern of heritage fences of a similar height.

Fence Materials

P13   Heritage properties of the Federation or Inter-War period should adopt timber and/or masonry materials which are characteristic of that period.

P14   Where new masonry front boundary fencing is proposed, the materials and design should match the colour and pattern of brickwork upon the existing building.

P15   The following materials are not permitted on a heritage property:

­   Arc Mesh, metal pool-type bars or modern tubular bars/pickets.

­   Concrete block.

­   Sheet metal – flat or corrugated and/or coloured.

­   Pressed metal coloured sections (e.g. Colorbond).

­   Sheet material including plywood, chipboard, fibre cement and glass fibre.

The issues

17. The remaining contentions are that the front sandstone fence as proposed does not comply with the objectives set out in clause 4.7.3 of the DCP and the hard stand area does not meet the objectives for properties in heritage conservation areas as set out at clauses 4.7.2, 4.5.3.9 and 4.5.3.11 of the DCP.

18. The council contended that the fence had not been surveyed and may encroach the council footpath. The Court directed the applicant to undertake a survey in order that it could determine whether any encroachment was apparent. That survey was filed on 5 February 2016 following the conclusion of the hearing and shows that part of the pillars and the capping encroach the footpath. The applicant advises this would be remedied by shaving the pillar façade. The extent of encroachment of the pillar varies from 0.015m to 0.08m with the capping further forward of the boundary.

The evidence

19. The hearing commenced on site with a view of the property and the HCA. Expert evidence was heard from Mr S Davies for the applicant and Ms M Kucic for the council.

The Fence

20. Ms Kucic says there are no stone fences within the Culdees Road streetscape and that the style of the fence differs from the small number of stone fences which can be found within the HCA. The materials do not complement the architecture or style of the existing house and the fence would be amongst the highest of all the front fences in the street. Where masonry pier front fences are found in the street they generally provide a more “open” component between piers and a lower basecourse.

21. Mr Davies acknowledged that the proposed fence is not strictly Federation in style but considers it to be generally sympathetic to the heritage significance of the subject property and the surrounding HCA. He says the use of high quality sandstone, as opposed to more contemporary materials (such as pressed metal/colourbond. Concrete block, sheet metal, Arc mesh etc.) respects the traditional character of the subject property and streetscape. The spacing of the columns and the rhythm of the fence is an appropriate fence style for the street.

22. Ms Kucic says that the existing house features no sandstone in its design and that it is uncommon for Federation properties to feature stone fences unless the associated house also featured this material. The materials of the existing house comprise predominately brick (now painted), shingle and other timberwork so a more sensitive choice would have been a traditional timber picket fence, picking up on the timberwork within the existing house, and responding to the nine other properties within Culdees Road with a timber picket fence.

23. She says the proposed fence represents a highly visible and dominant feature that has been added to the property and misrepresents what the original appearance would likely have been. The materials, scale and design of the fence delivers an ostentatious element to the property and is dissimilar to others in the Street.

24. Mr Davies holds the view that, though the sandstone fence does not respond directly to the materiality of the subject dwelling, solid rock face sandstone pier fences are not uncommon to Federation properties. The fence is of a design and scale that is generally appropriate to the Federation period, and is generally consistent with other solid masonry pier fences within the streetscape. The dwelling does not exhibit face brick and therefore the sandstone is an appropriate colour and texture in association with the current presentation of the dwelling.

25. Ms Kucic holds the view that the fence is amongst the highest in the street and features large sections of solid masonry. Other fences in the street tend to have substantial open-style sections which offer views to the gardens beyond; or if solid, these fences tend to be low in height. It is unlikely that the front hedge proposed would grow to a height which is highly visible behind the proposed front fence. The proportions of the fence - comprising a large section of stone base course topped by a modest timber picket infill are not in keeping with other masonry pier and infill style fences in Culdess Road.

26. Mr Davies says the Culdees Road streetscape features a mixture of fence styles, and there is no clear consistency within the streetscape or the wider HCA in terms of their materiality or style. The sandstone used to construct the new fence will wear over time, creating a natural patina that will result in an aged appearance that is appropriate to the heritage character of the subject property and the wider HCA. Additionally, a hedge is being established behind the recently erected fence which will complement the character of the garden, and the installation of timber palings between the piers will further enhance the traditional design of the fence. He notes the fence replaced a hedge on the front boundary and the mature hedging will provide a green backdrop to the fence. A number of properties within the HCA feature solid masonry pier fences with timber or wrought iron palisades. The overall design and proportions of the new fence are similar to that of other solid masonry peer fences in the vicinity, making the new fence more consistent with its immediate neighbours than the landscaped hedge previously present at the property. Many of the masonry fences within the HCA are contemporary, and are not strictly consistent with their associated dwellings in terms of period or style. For that reason he considers the new fence does not have any great impact on the overall character of the streetscape/HCA than other contemporary fences in the vicinity.

27. The experts considered what would be the most sympathetic front fence for the property having regard to the existing house and streetscape. Ms Kucic says it is appropriate to look at the materials of the house and the fences in the surrounding streetscape. In this regard, the Federation period house features substantial timber work in the facade, including fretwork details to its upper enclosed verandah. With the design of an original fence cannot be determined through research or other evidence she considers it prudent to choose a simple design. Around a third of the fences in the street are timber picket fences, while others are interpretations of this traditional style. A fence height of 1200 mm would generally accord with others in the street. For that reason she recommends that a traditional timber picket fence would have been a sensitive choice in responding to the period and style of the existing house as well as its street context.

28. Mr Davies holds the view that the height of the fence is similar to the adjoining fence and under the circumstances the height is not discernible in streetscape terms. And is acceptable whilst the amount of timber to stone is less than usual in the street the timber element will soften the appearance of the fence and provide a sympathetic design. The construction method of the fence does not easily lend itself to reducing the stone blocks and he considers that the stone is acceptable in the location and the issue is rather how much stone should occur between the columns. He considers the introduction of the timber will soften the existing construction.

29. Despite this disagreement, the experts do agree that some stone component could be retained. In this regard, the council proposed the removal of some of the sandstone courses to leave a base that was no higher than 400mm above footpath level with a timber insert to a maximum height of 700mm and the piers be reduced to a maximum height of 1.2m including the capping. Whilst this was considered an appropriate alternate fence, the council’s preferred position is that the fence is demolished, the current openings are maintained and the boundary planted with a hedge that would achieve a height of 2.5m. The former gates including light posts that have been retained by the owner would be installed if that option was found acceptable to the Court.

30. The applicant opposed the council's first option however did state, as a third preference the demolition of the fence and replacement with a hedge would be an appropriate outcome. Whilst it sought to finish the fence as proposed and outlined above, a second option of removing all of the columns except for those at the gate posts and planting a hedge behind the fence to a height of 2.5 m was also proposed.

The hardstand

31. Earlier driveways to the property have been reconfigured and the finishes altered. Paths have also been installed and a large number of earlier trees and shrubs has been cleared. The applicant agrees that a path that links the new driveway to the location of a secondary driveway on the southern side of the dwelling should be removed and the area reinstated with grass and planted with 2 trees. Whilst the Council accepted that offer it required the planting of at least five large and eight smaller trees.

32. In relation to the nature of change that has resulted from the construction of the new driveway, Ms Kucic says the area of hard stand has increased substantially and the altered northern driveway now facilitates the parking of vehicles in the front yard. The grey cobblestone-type pavers draw attention to the driveway, as opposed to being a recessive element. Landscaping has also been lost with established trees and other plantings in the front yard having been removed and replaced by fewer and smaller plants. She says it is unlikely that the front hedge as planted would grow to a height which is highly visible behind the proposed front fence.

33. Mr Davies agrees the hard stand has increased however says the paving is of high quality and well resolved with the amount of landscaped open space suitable in the location. The growth of the hedge and other plantings will soften the appearance of the dwelling in the streetscape and will screen the drive which is acceptable in the circumstances.

31. In relation to the impact of the hard stand and its contribution to the HCA, Ms Kucic says the extent of the hard stand in the front yard of the property and associated removal of landscaping is contrary to the heritage significance of that HCA which relate to period houses in the garden setting. New work to a heritage property should not seek to provide a 'stronger aesthetic response' but should instead seek to be recessive in its appearance. She considers the earlier gravel and brick border driveway with the sweeping design was far more sympathetic than the driveway that has been constructed. The earlier garden layout softened the appearance of the driveway and likewise the earlier southern driveway appears to have featured a boundary hedge, again softening the appearance of this hard stand area. In their place have been constructed larger and more visually dominant hardstand areas. The use of grey cobble-like pavers upon the driveway and patterned stone pathway serves to draw attention to the new work, rather than being recessive in its appearance.

32. Mr Davies says that prior to the work being undertaken, the property featured two typical contemporary driveways of gravel (north) and concrete (south). The re-laying of these driveways with grey brick pavers is considered to be an appropriate aesthetic response to the period and character of the subject property, as well as the surrounding HCA. The materiality of the driveways are now consistent and the texture of the paving provides a strong aesthetic response to the architectural detailing of the dwelling’s principal elevation. Prior to the work being undertaken, the property featured two driveways and it still features two driveways. He says this is appropriate to the width of the subject property which is approximately 1.5 times wider than other properties within the streetscape/HCA. The apparent increase in hardstand is reflective of a change in the materiality of areas that were already being used as driveways/parking areas, rather than the creation of new driveway/parking areas.

33. The experts then considered what would be an appropriate garden setting for the site having regard to the existing house and streetscape.

34. Ms Kucic says that the earlier garden and established trees made a positive contribution to the character of the HCA. A property of this size and period would be expected to have some medium and large trees within the setting. The earliest available aerial photography for this site, from 1943, indicates that the property had a hedge towards the front of the property and an informal layout of trees and shrubs of various sizes. Reintroduction of a number of trees and a larger variety of plants would be a historically appropriate response. More substantial plantings could also help to soften the appearance of the driveway, hard stand and garage.

35. Mr Davies says that prior to the clearance of vegetation the property featured a tall hedge to the front property boundaries, as well as a large number of trees and shrubs. As part of the recent works much of this vegetation was generally cleared. Garden beds were installed along the northern drive and front boundary fence. The decorative paving installed within the open grassed area to the front of the dwelling is to be removed and two trees are to be planted in the front lawn area. Open grassed areas have also been maintained between the driveways to the front of the dwelling. Overall these landscaping works have resulted in a more simple garden setting which allows the principal elevation of the dwelling to have a greater degree of disability within the streetscape. This is also more in keeping with the gardens/front yards of surrounding properties, the majority of which also feature garden beds and low scale plantings, rather than the dense vegetation dominated by trees previously present at the subject property.

36. He concludes the works to the front yard, including the replacement of the gravel and concrete driveways with brick pavers and the new garden plantings within garden bed has resulted in a more simple aesthetic treatment overall. The current front yard is more reflective of Culdees Road and the hedge that is being established behind the recently erected fence will complement the character of the garden.

37. Again, the applicant and council provided a range of options for the Court to consider. The applicant agrees to remove the sandstone pathway in front of the dwelling. It also proposes to introduce a buxus hedge in the northern front grass area and install a planter box filled with plants identified in the ‘Exotic Plant’ table ‘shrubs’ categories of the Suggested Plant List in Burwood Council’s Landscaping Code. The planter box is a small area between the garage and dwelling entry and I estimate it would have dimensions no greater than 3m by 1m.

38. Ms Kucic had prepared an overlay of the existing and former hardstand areas as part of the Joint Report, Exhibit 2. That plan suggests the extent of hardstand has increased by around 50%, from 100.1sqm to 153.6sqm.

39. The council is seeking a reduction in the amount of hardstand to an area of 114.2sqm. That area would facilitate vehicular access to the garage and pedestrian access to the dwelling whilst providing for additional impervious areas. It would also provide impervious areas around a significant tree and its root protection zone.

Conclusion and findings

43. Having regard to the evidence, the options suggested by the experts and the provisions of the LEP and DCP, it is apparent that the fence as proposed by the applicant is contrary to the objectives of Clause 5.10(b) of the LEP in that it does not conserve the heritage significance of the HCA nor is it in keeping with the period and style of the building as required by the objectives of the DCP. The fence does not reflect the character, materials, height, rhythm of bays and openings, design and colour of the predominant fence design within the streetscape. The dwelling does not contain any sandstone elements. Sandstone has been introduced as garden edging adjacent to the dwelling however this is not part of the building style.

44. There are no sandstone based fences with Culdees Road. Where sandstone bases do occur within the HCA, they are either a wholly sandstone fence or incorporate open metal infill panels rather than the more solid picket infill proposed in this case.

45. The fence also exceeds the 1.2m maximum height, the basecourse exceeds the one third control and would not meet the maximum height of 900mm for solid front fences. Whilst there are some fences that exceed 1.2m in height this is atypical of the character of the streetscape, fences are primarily lower and more open in nature. The fence as proposed would be a dominant element in the streetscape and this dominance would be emphasised by the wide frontage of the site.

46. Whilst there are a variety of fencing types in the streetscape, none of those fences have a basecourse as high or heavy as that proposed. Where basecourses are higher, they are constructed of materials consistent with the materials used in the dwelling they adjoin.

47. For these reasons the style of fence proposed is not considered appropriate in the setting within the HCA.

48. I do not consider that it is necessary to demolish the fence in its entirety and replace it with a hedge as proposed by the council however I do consider that it is appropriate that its height be reduced. In this regard, I accept the condition proposed by the council that the sandstone basecourse be reduced to a maximum height of 400mm above footpath level and the timber pickets be no greater than 700mm high with the columns not to exceed 1.2m including the capping. In addition, the encroachment of the fence onto the footpath must be removed.

49. In relation to the hard stand, I note the agreement of the applicant to demolish the decorative paving that has been installed within the building alignment and consider that this should occur. The applicant has also agreed to plant 2 medium to small trees in the front yard. Council is seeking 5 additional trees and 8 shrubs.

50. I also agree with Ms Kucic that the extent of hardstand is excessive and is no longer a recessive element but rather dominates the curtilage of the dwelling house. The extent of hardstand is not sympathetic to the character of the HCA or the setting and style of the dwelling. For these reasons, I accept the evidence of the council that the extent of hardstand should be reduced and the extent of the reduction should exceed that proposed by the applicant.

51. I accept Ms Kucic’s evidence that the additional hardstand and the removal of landscaping is contrary to the heritage significance of that HCA which relates to period houses in a garden setting. For this reason, I consider it appropriate that the amount of paved area be reduced as proposed by the council.

52. The Order as issued by the Council did not require any additional tree planting however, having regard to photographs included in the evidence, I consider that it is appropriate to reinstate some planting on the site and in this regard, the applicant’s offer to plant 2 additional trees to complement the landscaping undertaken is considered appropriate with the remainder of the area where the hardstand is removed to be grassed. This would be consistent with the character of the HCA.

53. Because the council has issued a building certificate and development consent for parts of the works to which the Order applies, it is appropriate to uphold the appeal and delete those matters from the Order. The remaining terms of the Order should be modified as outlined above and to require modification of the fence and hardstand areas.

54. The Orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. The Terms of the Order issued by Burwood Council to Mr Omar Abdul-Rahman, owner of land at No 2 Culdees Road, Burwood Heights on 3 September 2015 are modified as follows:

1. Terms Nos 1 and 2 are deleted.

2. Term No 3 of the Order is modified so as to read as follows:

3.   The existing front boundary fence shall be adapted to provide a lower sandstone fence with traditional timber picket infill. The fence is to be constructed as follows:

1. Demolition of all sections of the fence that encroach the council’s footpath.

2. Partially demolishing the existing fence, retaining the lower course/s of sandstone (being no greater than 400mm high from existing footpath level) to form a traditional base course.

3. Installation of a traditional vertical timber picket infill section above the base course, having a maximum height of 700mm.

4. Each timber picket having a width of 65mm (visible in elevation) and a minimum aperture of 25mm between pickets.

5. Each section of pickets (i.e. between piers) shall feature timber fretwork that matches the fretwork detail upon the house’s enclosed upper verandah.

6. Pedestrian and driveway gates shall be faced with traditional vertical timber pickets matching that of the infill panels, and the gates shall not exceed a height of 1200mm from existing ground level.

7. Timber components shall be painted cream and/or white to match the existing house.

8. No part of the front fencing, including footing, must encroach upon the public road reserve.

9. Entrance gates must open within/into the property.

3. Term No 4 of the Order is modified so as to read as follows:

4.   Hardstand

The total area of existing hardstand within the front yard (i.e. forward of the house and garage shall be reduced by realigning the driveway and path as indicated by the green outline upon the plan titled ‘Comparison of hardstand Areas 2 Culdees Road, Burwood Heights and included as Annexure A to this Order.

The hardstand forward of the double garage shall be narrowed only to the width of the garage door. Four metres ahead of the garage door, the hardstand area shall reduce further to 3 metres wide to align with the width of the driveway entrance. These measures are intended to limit the parking of vehicles ahead of the garage, and enable the restoration of soft landscaping. The areas where the hardstand is removed are to be turfed.

The sandstone and pebble path, which runs parallel to the front fence within the front yard, shall be demolished and the area turfed.

Two (2) trees identified in the ‘Medium and Small Trees’ category of the Suggested Plant List in the Burwood Council’s Landscaping Code to be planted in the front yard (excluding any plant in the list of ‘Exempt Species of Trees’ in Section 6.1.5 of Burwood Council’s Development Control Plan and a weed declared in the Local Control Authority area of Burwood Council (available from the NSW Department of Primary Industries NSW WeedWise website). A plan of the additional planting (with plant names identified) shall be submitted to Burwood Council prior to undertaking work.

The trees are to be maintained for the life of the development.

4. The exhibits, other than exhibit A, are returned.

_____________________

Sue Morris

Commissioner of the Court

10877 of 2015 Annexure A (307 KB, pdf)

**********

Decision last updated: 16 February 2016