Chau v Parramatta City Council - [2009] NSWLEC 1363

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Chau v Parramatta City Council [2009] NSWLEC 1363

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Yiu Ping Chau
RESPONDENT
Parramatta City Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 10432 of 2009

CORAM: Pearson C

KEY ISSUES: :- dual occupancy development
non-compliance with approved plans

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001
Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

CASES CITED: Windy Dropdown Pty Ltd v Warringah Council (2000) 111 LGERA 299

DATES OF HEARING: 21 October 2009

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
10 November 2009

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT
Mr AJJ Thompson, solicitor
Richie & Castellan
RESPONDENT
Mr P Marincowitz, solicitor
DLA Philips Fox

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Pearson C

10 November 2009

10432 of 2009 Yiu Ping Chau v Parramatta City Council
JUDGMENT

1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Parramatta City Council (the Council) of an application pursuant to s96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) to modify development consent number DA/127/2005 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a two story attached dual occupancy dwelling with Torrens title subdivision, at 80 Dunlop Street Epping, Lot 14 Sec 3 DP 10048 (the site).

2 The proposed modifications include:

-Reduced setback to the western boundary

-Increased setback to the eastern boundary

-Deletion of eaves

-Changes to internal layout for the ground and first floors

-Extension to western unit first-floor street facing balcony

-Reduction in the sizes of two ground floor windows for the western unit

-Repositioning of two windows on the eastern elevation

-The family room/kitchen windows to ground floor of eastern unit

-Relocation of rainwater tanks into the sub floor area below each unit; and

-Amended external finishes.

Background

3 The site has an area of approximately 1073.1 sq m and is located on the low southern side of Dunlop Street. The site adjoins dwelling houses on the eastern and southern and western boundaries. The land slopes from the street to the south.

4 The Council approved DA/127/2005 on 10 July 2006 subject to conditions. On 27 December 2006 a construction certificate was issued by ACE Building Approvals and construction of the development commenced in early 2007. On 31 May 2007 the Principal Certifying Authority issued a Notice of Intention to give an Order to the builder in respect of development not being constructed in accordance with the approved development consent. On 3 August 2007 the applicant lodged an application with Council pursuant to s96(2) of the Act to modify the development consent (the modification application). The modification application was notified and a total of eight written submissions and a signed petition were received. An on site meeting was held on 16 February 2008.

5 The issues raised by residents in submissions and at the on site meeting concerned the following:

Certification

Setbacks

Privacy

Height

Floor space ratio

Stormwater

Safety and security

Health and amenity

Internal configuration

Incorrect plans and validity of modification application

Unauthorised fill

Consideration of the modification application

6 The Council's Development Assessment Officer prepared a planning report for consideration by council, recommending approval of the application subject to conditions. Council resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons:

-The development shown on the plans lodged with the modification application would not have been approved if lodged as an original DA due to numeric non-compliance and s79C considerations

-The numeric non-compliances in the modification application fail to satisfy the objectives of the relevant controls

-The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted is inadequate

-The application does not comply with clause 3.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 in that the minimum side setback is less than 1.5 m

-The application does not comply with clause 40 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 in that the floor space ratio exceeds 0.6:1

-The application results in unacceptable levels of overlooking and invasion of privacy on the western and southern elevations

-The application results in an unacceptable level of overshadowing on the adjoining property on the western side

-The addition of the subfloor areas stated to be for installation of rainwater tanks does not comply with LEP 2001

-The plans lodged with the application are not an accurate representation of the present non-complying construction

-The proposal is unacceptable in bulk and scale

-The plans lodged with the application include non-compliances and breaches of the conditions of consent which do not form part of the application including the illegal construction of a retaining wall without appropriate drainage on the southern boundary and metal fencing on the southern boundary

-Approval would not be in the public interest.

Planning controls

7 The site is zoned Residential 2A under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 (Parramatta LEP 2001). The objectives for the zone are:

(a) to enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area, and

(b) to encourage redevelopment of low density housing forms, including dual occupancy development, where such redevelopment does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential areas, or the natural and cultural heritage of the area, and

(c) to ensure that building form, including that of alterations and additions, is in character with the surrounding built environment, and

(d) to provide opportunities for people to carry out a reasonable range of activities from their homes where such activities will not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, and

(e) to allow for a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors in residential neighbourhoods.

8 Clause 40 of Parramatta LEP 2001 provides that the maximum floor space ratio for a dual occupancy building is 0.6:1.

9 Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 (Parramatta DCP 2005) applies. The aims of the Parramatta DCP 2005 are set out at section 1.6:

The aims of this DCP are to:

-Ensure that development contributes to the quality of the natural and built environments

-Encourage development that contributes to the quality of the public domain

-Ensure that development is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable

-Ensure future development has consideration for the needs of all members of the community

-Ensure development positively responds to the qualities of the site and its context

-Ensure development positively responds to the character of the surrounding area.

10 The applicable preliminary building envelope is set out in section 3.1 of Parramatta DCP 2005 and relevantly requires a minimum 15 m frontage; a maximum of two storeys and the maximum building height of 9 m; a street setback consistent with the prevailing setback along the street within the range of 5 to 9 m; rear setback of minimum 30% of length of the site; and site setback minimum 1.5 m.

11 The relevant provisions in Part 4 of Parramatta DCP 2005 are 4.2.2 Fences; 4.2.3 Building Form and Massing; 4.3.2 Visual and Acoustic Privacy; and 4.3.4 Solar Access and Cross Ventilation.

The Issues

12 The issues between the parties are as follows:

Objectives of planning controls

Inadequate information

Setbacks

Floor space ratio

Overlooking and overshadowing

Bulk and scale

Fencing

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

Public interest

Windy Dropdown Pty Ltd v Warringah Council

Objectors : the Council contends that in so far as the issues raised by the objectors coincide with its contentions they are matters warranting refusal of the application.

The evidence

13 The hearing commenced on site. The occupants of 82 Dunlop Street (the property immediately to the west of the site), and 11 and 13 Audine Avenue (the properties adjoining on the southern boundary of the site) gave evidence, and the Court was taken to 82 Dunlop Street and 13 Audine Avenue. The residents had made written submissions during the notification period and copies of their written submissions were provided by the Council. The concerns of the residents as expressed on site were consistent with their written submissions, and related to the following:

-Overlooking and overshadowing on the western boundary as a consequence of the building as constructed being 400mm closer to that boundary than approved, and 9.7m rather than 10m from the street frontage

-Location of a gas hot water heater too close to the western boundary and the adjoining property

-Use of the subfloor area, given the construction of what appears to be a window space on the southern side of the eastern unit, and the increase in size from that approved in the development consent

-Impact of a glassed roof or covered awning over the ground floor patio at the rear of the building

-Piecemeal approval of the parts of the construction work rather than a comprehensive consideration

-impact of unauthorised retaining wall on water flow, and consequent damage to trees at the rear of 13 Audine Avenue; the loss of screening resulting in the building appearing higher and more dominant.

14 Town planning evidence was provided by Mr Neil Kennan as the parties’ single expert. Mr Kennan provided a written report dated 21 September 2009 in which he noted that he had reviewed the documents, had made a site inspection, and had viewed the site from neighbouring properties at 11 and 13 Audine Avenue and 82 Dunlop Street. Mr Kennan noted (at 1.7):

During my inspection of the site, I observed that the approved development has been partially constructed and that there are sections of the partially constructed development which do not match either the approved plans or the now proposed amendments to those plans. In this regard, I have been advised by the applicant that, if the court is of mind to approve the amendments proposed, all non-complying elements of the partially constructed development will be remedied to match the approved amended plans. I have prepared my Statement of Evidence on this assumption.

15 In his written report Mr Kennan addressed each of the Council's contentions, and concluded that on the basis of the information provided to him, the information gained during the site inspection, and assuming amended plans are provided which correctly depict the dimensions of proposed amended windows, he was of the view that the impacts associated with the proposed amended development are not such that the application should fail. Mr Kennan was present during the Court’s site inspection, and gave oral evidence.

Consideration

Aims and objectives of the Parramatta LEP 2001 and DCP 2005

16 In his written report Mr Kennan expressed the opinion that the Council, as part of its assessment of DA127/2005 would have considered the approved development against the zone objectives and concluded that the approved development was consistent with the objectives of the zone, and that there was nothing in the proposed amendments which would offend the objectives of the Residential 2A zone. He was of a similar opinion in relation to consistency with the objectives of Parramatta DCP 2005. In oral evidence, Mr Kennan stated that nothing had arisen during the site inspection or clarification of the proposed amendments to change that opinion.

17 The development as modified is still for demolition and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy. The modifications for which approval is sought are primarily a response to the building having been constructed otherwise than in accordance with the approved plans, most significantly by being positioned on the site closer to the western boundary than approved. Objective (c) of the Residential 2A zone relates to ensuring that the building form is in character with the surrounding built environment. It was clear from the site inspection that some of the residents’ concerns as to height, bulk and scale relate to the building form as it appears from the partially constructed building. While understanding their concerns, it should be noted that in most respects the external dimensions of the partially constructed building are as originally approved by the Council. The central issue relevant to the objectives of the Residential 2A zone in considering this modification application is the extent to which the modifications impact on the amenity of the established residential area (objectives (a) and (b)), in particular through impacts on privacy and solar access. These matters are addressed below.

Inadequate information

18 In his written report Mr Kennan agreed that the Statement of Environmental Effects was inadequate, and expressed the opinion that plans provided with the modification application did not show what amendments are proposed to the windows of the approved development. Mr Kennan noted that if amended plans were provided, the information before the court would be satisfactory to enable the Court to understand the amendments proposed by the applicant; and that the proposed amendments to the approved development are not, in his opinion, of such a scale that the development would be rendered not substantially the same as that which was approved by the Council.

19 During the course of the site inspection there was clarification of the proposed amendments, in particular in relation to the two windows of the living area on the western side, the window at the southern side on the ground floor of the western unit, and the size and use of the basement areas. Mr Kennan measured the window space on the southern side of the western unit to be 2.010m wide (as approved), and 1.300 m high (1.400 approved height). The basement area on the eastern unit is 4.7m by 2.85m as built; that on the western unit complies with the approved plans.

20 I am satisfied, based on the additional information provided during the course of the site inspection, that there is sufficient information before the Court to enable a proper understanding of the proposed modifications. I am also satisfied, having considered those proposed modifications, that the development to which the consent as modified is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was granted. However, final plans which reflect the changes as agreed on site are required prior to any approval being granted to the application.

Setbacks

21 In his written report Mr Kennan noted that the approved development has setbacks to the eastern and western boundaries of 1.505m with eaves overhanging within that setback area, and that the proposed amended development contains variable side setbacks, each of which is different to the approved setbacks. Based on an Identification Survey Report of 30 May 2007, the partially constructed building has setbacks as follows:

western boundary at the street frontage:1.155m (0.35m less than approved);

western boundary at the rear of the building: 1.175m (0.33m less than approved);

eastern boundary at the street frontage: 1.84m (0.335m more than approved); and

eastern boundary at the rear of the building 1.82m (0.315m more than approved).

22 In oral evidence Mr Kennan noted that there had been some concern expressed about the front setback, with the survey provided by Mr Isaac (82 Dunlop Street) showing the front setback at 9.76m instead of the approved 10m. Mr Kennan stated that he had checked the approved plans, which show “10m” in writing, but which scale at 9.76m. Mr Kennan noted that the survey of 28 September 2009 was based on a benchmark from the front gutter alignment, and noted that there was a need to measure the setback accurately to be sure what it is. Mr Kennan expressed the opinion that even at 9.76m, any increased impact of shadow on 82 Dunlop Street would be almost indiscernible; and would be at approximately 9.00am and probably gone by 11:30am in winter.

23 The setback from the boundary on the western side of the building as partially constructed is between 1.155m and 1.175m, which does not comply with the 1.5 minimum specified at section 3.1 of Parramatta DCP 2005 for a dual occupancy development. The report of the Development Assessment Officer, and the evidence of Mr Kennan, establish that the building otherwise complies with the setback requirements. The side setback is specified for the purposes of determining a preliminary building envelope in Part 3 of Parramatta DCP 2005, and section 3.0 notes that this is refined by applying the relevant general principles in Part 4 of the Parramatta DCP 2005, including private open space, solar access, visual and acoustic privacy, landscaping, streetscape and building form and massing, to modify the preliminary building envelope. The significant issue in this application is the extent to which non-compliance with the setback requirement results in unacceptable impacts on the matters outlined in Part 4, in particular privacy and solar access. The residents of 80 Dunlop Street also raised concerns that the location of a gas hot water system on the western side of the building so close to the boundary would create a fire risk. The applicant is now proposing to locate the hot water systems in the basement areas of the building. For the reasons given below, I am satisfied that this and the other modifications proposed to minimise the impact of the non-compliance with the side setback requirement sufficiently address the relevant matters in Part 4 of the Parramatta DCP 2005, and that the non-compliance with the side setback requirement is not a basis on which the application should be refused.

Overlooking and overshadowing

24 In his written report Mr Kennan expressed the opinion that the window shown on the western elevation attached to the kitchen of the western unit is below the line of the 1.8m boundary fence such that there would be no unreasonable opportunity for overlooking from that kitchen window to 82 Dunlop Street. Mr Kennan stated that with regard to the windows to the living area of the western dwelling, although those windows are proposed to be amended, each will look across 82 Dunlop Street as would the approved windows. The view from those windows is to the vehicle entrance and carport area of 82 Dunlop Street and there are no living room areas of 82 Dunlop Street which would be overlooked by either the approved or amended windows.

25 Mr Kennan noted that the applicant, as part of the proposed amendments, has removed the eaves, and having considered shadow diagrams showing the additional shadow which would be cast by the amended development, Mr Kennan was of the opinion that the impact of the amended development with regard to overshadowing is negligible and would not impact any living or primary open space areas of 82 Dunlop Street.

26 In oral evidence Mr Kennan was asked about the possible impact on development potential for 82 Dunlop Street as a consequence of the different setback on the western boundary of the site. Mr Kennan agreed that any impact on redevelopment potential was a relevant factor however he pointed to the difference in setback requirements in section 3.1 of the DCP for a dwelling house (900mm) as opposed to a dual occupancy development (1.5m). Mr Kennan was of the opinion that any potential redevelopment of 82 Dunlop Street could be built 900mm from the boundary, and would take into account in its design what is already on 80 Dunlop Street; in his opinion there would be sufficient flexibility. Mr Kennan was of the opinion that the sill height of the two windows off the living area on the western side were an improvement in terms of overlooking and privacy in comparison with the windows originally approved by Council. While the development consent had one of those windows off a study rather than the living area, Mr Kennan was of the opinion that that would not impact on any potential overlooking and privacy as it is possible that a study could be used by the occupants more frequently than a living area.

27 The objectives of the visual and acoustic privacy principles at section 4.3.2 of Parramatta DCP 2005 are as follows:

O.1 To ensure that development does not cause unreasonable overlooking of habitable rooms and principal private open spaces of dwellings

O.2 To ensure that visual privacy is provided both within a development and between a development and its neighbours

O.3 To ensure that the siting and design of development minimises the impacts of noise transmissions between properties

28 I accept the evidence of Mr Kennan, which was confirmed on the site inspection, that the height of the kitchen window on the western elevation is below the boundary fence and that this window would not provide an unreasonable opportunity for overlooking to 82 Dunlop Street. The proposed modifications increase the sill height of the two windows off the living area on the western elevation to 1.5m, and to that extent reduce impacts on visual privacy when compared to the development as approved. The views from those windows are primarily to the vehicle entrance and carport areas of 82 Dunlop Street, and further towards the street frontage, of the kitchen window of 82 Dunlop Street, and thus there is minimal overlooking of habitable rooms and principal private open spaces. I accept Mr Kennan’s evidence that in the context of the different setbacks required for single dwelling houses and dual occupancy developments in the Parramatta DCP 2005, there is sufficient flexibility remaining for any future re-development of 82 Dunlop Street to ensure that visual privacy is retained between any such future re-development and the development as modified. I am satisfied that the development as modified meets the objectives of the Parramatta DCP 2005 in relation to visual privacy.

29 The objectives of the solar access principles at section 4.3.4 of Parramatta DCP 2005 are as follows:

O.1 To provide thermal comfort for occupants

O.2 To ensure that development does not unreasonably diminish sunlight to adjoining properties and within the development site

O.3 To ensure that sunlight access is provided to private open space and habitable rooms to improve amenity and energy efficiency

O.4 To ensure sufficient volumes of fresh air circulate through buildings to create a comfortable indoor environment and to optimize cross ventilation

30 The Development Assessment Officer’s report noted that the development as approved will partially overshadow 82 Dunlop Street between the hours of 9.00 to 12.00 at the winter solstice on 21 June, however would not overshadow the existing dwelling on that property, and that the modified development with reduced side setback would extend the 9.00am shadow line by 100mm towards the existing dwelling. The dwelling on 82 Dunlop Street would still receive solar access between 9.00am and 3.00pm at the winter solstice, which is consistent with the requirements of the Parramatta DCP 2005. Mr Kennan’s evidence was that the impact of the amended development, which includes the deletion of the eaves, is negligible and would not impact on any living area or primary open space areas of 82 Dunlop Street. Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that the development as modified meets the objectives of Parramatta DCP 2005 in relation to solar access.

Floor Space Ratio

31 Mr Kennan noted that the plans submitted with the modification application show that there is proposed to be a basement room attached to each of the approved dwellings which is to be used to house a 3000 litre rainwater tank for each dwelling. The basement level has in fact been constructed and the basement level to the eastern dwelling is substantially larger than that indicated on the amended plans and contains a window to its southern elevation. In oral evidence Mr Kennan noted that the doorways into those two areas as constructed were not consistent with the doorways shown on the plan submitted with the modification application and that those plans would need to be amended.

32 The Dictionary for Parramatta LEP 2001 defines “floor space ratio” to mean “the ratio of the floor space area of the building to the area of the allotment on which the building is or is proposed to be erected”. The Dictionary relevantly defines “ floor space area” as follows:

of a building means the sum of the gross horizontal areas of each floor of the building contained within the inner faces of the outer walls measured at a height of 1.5 metres above the floor, including the space occupied by internal walls, staircases, lobbies, corridors and toilets, but not including:

…

(c) any space for the accommodation of mechanical or electrical plant or equipment servicing the building, or

...

33 Mr Kennan agreed in oral evidence with the position adopted by the Council Development Assessment Officer in the report to Council that use of the sub floor areas for the storage of the rainwater tanks could be said to fall within paragraph (c) of the definition of floor space area as “equipment servicing the building”, and thus is not included in the calculation of floor space ratio. On the basis that the hot water systems for the two units were also located in the subfloor or basement areas, Mr Kennan was of the opinion that the building as modified would comply with the floor space ratio requirement provided that a wall was erected in the basement area of the southern unit to reduce it to the dimensions of the plans as originally approved.

34 The calculation of the floor space ratio of the development as modified depends on whether the basement areas are included. Mr Marincowitz for the council submitted that it was open to conclude that they should be included; on that basis, assuming that the area of the basement of the eastern unit was reduced by the construction of a wall so that each measures 13.65 sq m, the total floor space area of the building (as determined by the Development Assessment Officer) would be 670.3 sq m which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.63:1. I agree with Mr Kennan and the Development Assessment Officer that the rainwater tanks and hot water systems could properly be regarded as being equipment servicing the building, and thus excluded from the floor space area. On that basis, the floor space ratio of the development as modified complies with the floor space ratio requirements of the Parramatta LEP 2001. However, the addition of the basement areas raises issues of height, bulk and scale, which are considered below.

Height, bulk and scale

35 In oral evidence Mr Kennan said that deleting the eaves from the building would reduce the total roof form required; however, there would be minimal difference in terms of bulk and scale comparing two buildings, one with eaves and one without. In relation to height, Mr Kennan relied in his written report on the Identification Survey report of 30 May 2007 which indicates that the floor levels of the partially constructed building are:

-ground floor at the rear of the building: 111.66m (as approved),

-ground floor at the front of the building: 114.14m (approved level 114.13m),

-first floor 117.14m (117.13m approved), and

-ridge of brick wall 121.95m (approved ridge level 122.07m).

36 The Council’s Development Assessment Officer noted in his report that while the floor to ceiling heights of the subfloor areas measure 1.8m and protrude more than 1.2m above ground level, which constitutes a storey as defined in the Parramatta LEP 2001, no portion of the building exceeds the two storey height limit.

37 The walls of the basement areas can be seen from the properties at the rear in Audine Street, and from the rear yard of 82 Dunlop Street. While the overall height and configuration of the building as it appears from those properties is generally in accordance with the plans as approved by the Council, the addition of the basement areas together with the excavation of the existing ground level adds to the bulk of the building. Although no portion of the building exceeds two storeys under the definition, nonetheless the basement level adds to the height as it is perceived from the properties at the rear.

38 The plans for the development as approved include a site plan showing finished level of the ground floor at the rear of the building of RL111.58, and contours at the rear of the building sloping to the south from RL110.43 to 108.5. The plans as modified (Ex A) show the ground level at the rear of the building at RL 110.55 (drawing 01) and the finished floor level of the basement areas at RL109.66 (drawing 08). In oral evidence Mr Kennan stated that he was not aware whether anyone has checked the actual basement area levels. This should be done as part of any amended plans.

39 There was disagreement between the parties as to whether it would be appropriate to impose a condition on any approval of a modification requiring, in the terms of draft condition 4 as proposed by the Council, that the finished ground levels at the rear of the site be “reinstated” in accordance with the ground levels shown in the plans as originally approved. Mr Kennan agreed that such a condition would be reasonable, on the basis that there needed to be amendments made to landscaping plans. Mr Thompson for the applicant argued that a condition worded in those terms presumes that the levels have been altered. Mr Marincowitz pressed for such a condition on the basis that the Council was seeking to have conformity with the plans as originally approved.

40 As noted above, the overall height of the partially constructed building is generally consistent with the plans as approved by the Council. The addition of the basement areas increases the bulk and height of the building as it appears from the rear of the property, and the impact of that would be minimised by retention of the ground level at the rear of the building as approved by the Council. That would require consideration of how access to the basement areas through the doorways as constructed would be achieved, and any amended plans would need to address this issue of access and ground level. On that basis, I am satisfied that the concerns expressed by the residents concerning the height, bulk and scale of the building as a consequence of the proposed modifications have been addressed, and the impact of the proposed modifications would not be a basis for refusal of the application.

Objectors

41 The objectors raised concern about the proposed fixed fibreglass cover or awning over the patio at the rear on ground level. The applicant does not press for this to be included in the modification application, and these would need to be deleted in any amended plans.

42 A significant issue of concern for the resident objectors, in particular those living in Audine Avenue, concerned the erection of a concrete retaining wall along the rear of the site. While this retaining wall appears on the plans provided as part of the modification application, both parties agree that this should not form part of the current application before the Court. The resident objectors raised concerns that the excavation and filling of soil as a consequence of the construction of the retaining wall has resulted in different levels in the rear area to those of the original, which raises concerns both as to the height of the development when viewed from the properties at the rear, and in relation to stormwater flows. The issue of added height and bulk has been addressed above. In relation to stormwater flows, any amended plans will need to address the issue of ground levels at the rear of the building, which may have an impact on ground levels over the lower parts of the site.

43 The residents also raised concerns about the proposed colourbond fence at the rear of the property; this is shown on the approved plans and would therefore appear to have been approved by the Council.

Conclusion

44 I am satisfied that on the basis of the findings above the application can be approved. However, the plans before the Court do not reflect significant elements of the building as partially constructed and the modifications the applicant is now seeking as clarified during the course of the hearing. The applicant should have an opportunity to prepare and submit amended plans, which will need to include the removal of the proposed awnings, provision of the dimensions of the window on the southern elevation of the western unit, the relocation of the two hot water systems in the subfloor area, relocation of the doorways into the subfloor area to reflect the partially constructed building, reduction in size of the basement area of the eastern unit and the removal of the window on the southern elevation of that unit, and details of finished ground levels at the rear of the building including access to the subfloor areas. The finishes are not consistently shown on the drawings and plans submitted in support of the application, and there needs to be an amended Schedule of finishes.

45 Specific directions regarding the provision of amended plans, and the drafting of conditions, will be made after discussion with the parties.

Linda Pearson

Commissioner of the Court

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Chau v Parramatta City Council [2009] NSWLEC 1363

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

3

Windy Dropdown Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2000] NSWLEC 240

CITATION:	Chau v Parramatta City Council [2009] NSWLEC 1363
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Yiu Ping Chau RESPONDENT Parramatta City Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10432 of 2009
CORAM:	Pearson C
KEY ISSUES:	:- dual occupancy development non-compliance with approved plans
LEGISLATION CITED:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005
CASES CITED:	Windy Dropdown Pty Ltd v Warringah Council (2000) 111 LGERA 299
DATES OF HEARING:	21 October 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 November 2009
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr AJJ Thompson, solicitor Richie & Castellan RESPONDENT Mr P Marincowitz, solicitor DLA Philips Fox