Defence Housing Authority v Hornsby Shire Council - [2004] NSWLEC 648

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Defence Housing Authority v Hornsby Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 648

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Defence Housing Authority
RESPONDENT
Hornsby Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 10831 of 2004

CORAM: Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Demolition of three houses - erection of two sets of semi-detached houses and one detached house - easement for stormwater - overlooking - height - bulk - character of locality versus character of proposal - the allotment for the detach house is undersize

LEGISLATION CITED: Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994
Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING: 05/10/2004

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE : 11/01/2004

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Ms S Duggan, barrister
SOLICITORS
Piper Alderman
RESPONDENT
Mr I Woodward, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Storey & Gough

JUDGMENT:

- 33 -

ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

1 November 2004

10831 of 2004 Defence Housing Authority v Hornsby Shire Council

JUDGMENT

1 This was a class one appeal No. 10831/2004 between Defence Housing Authority v Hornsby Shire Council in regard to the refusal of an application at Nos. 12, 14 and 16 Morgan Street, Thornleigh, to demolish three houses and erect five two-storey dwellings including one detached house and two sets of two semi-detached townhouses.

2 The development included subdivision of the existing three lots into five so that each new dwelling had its own Torrens Title allotment.

3 The site was just under 2,500 sq m in area so the resultant subdivisions would give a 500 sq m lot to each semi-detached unit and a 480 sq m square lot to the detached house. The minimum lot size for subdivision was 500 sq m. The lots were all slightly fan shaped as the site was on a curve in Morgan Street. They had frontages of about 12 m and a depth of about 45 m with rear boundaries of about 8 m.

4 Units 1 and 2 were attached and on the flattest part of the site. There was only a slight fall to the rear of about 1.5 m.

5 Units 3 and 4 were attached also and they were in a position where Morgan Street rose along their frontage although the houses themselves were on relatively flat land. The embankment in the front set back was between 2 and 3½ m high. From the bottom of the embankment to the rear boundary was again only about a 1.5 m further slope downwards.

6 Unit 5 the detached house was on a part of Morgan Street where the slope extended further into the allotment so that the house was actually on the slope and a little above units 3 and 4. The embankment rose about 3½ m up to the street. But once again, from the foot of the slope the backyard only fell about another 1½ m from the back of the house to the back fence.

7 There was a grove of mature trees in the front setbacks of units 3, 4 and 5 and one mature tree in front of unit 2. Some other trees existed near the side boundaries of the backyards of units 1 and 5 with some shrubs along parts of the back fences.

8 There was a battleaxe lot that adjoined the rear boundary of all five lots. It was No.18 Morgan Street occupied by the McMasters. Its entry drive was beside No.16 where proposed unit 1 would be. Number 18 occupied a large lot between the subject site and the creek. There was a pleasant single storey brick and tile house on it. The house faced the creek and bushland away from the proposed development, but its rear yard and deck off the family room and kitchen faced towards units 4 and 5 and its master bedroom and its balcony faced the rear of unit 1 of the proposal.

9 There was a gap between the driveway of No.18 and No.20 Morgan Street. The gap was due to a wide easement for large underground pressure mains that were connected to a pumping station across the creek.

10 On the other side of Morgan Street from units 1 and 2, was No.15 Morgan Street, an elevated single storey brick house on the high side of the road occupied by the Knights.

11 East of the site beside unit 5 a detached house was No.10 Morgan Street, a single storey brick house with its driveway adjacent to No. 5. As the land was rising No.10 was on about the same contour as the proposed unit 5.

12 Further down the east boundary of unit 5 were the rear fences of No.1 Dale Close and No.1A Dale Close, both single storey houses with smaller backyards than the proposal. And being down on the flatter land they were on about the same contour as the backyard as the proposed unit 5.

13 Mr Don at No.1A had not lodged a written objection, but onsite the Court heard his evidence and visited his property, as did the Court at the Knights and the McMasters.

14 The Court was told that the proposal had been changed to give individual identity to each building, but retained a brick and tile construction seen in most houses in Morgan Street. Also the Court was told the front entries of the semi-detached houses had been varied so only one in each set faced the street with its front door. And, the garages were double tandem style so that at first glance they looked like a double garage for one house. A passer-by could easily think they were single houses, not two semis.

15 At the rear, each of the five units stepped down to be single storey so that the visual bulk was reduced, privacy improved both between the units and with respect to the neighbours. Lattice screens had also been added to rear decks to further improve privacy.

16 The objectors had only seen some of these changes a few days before the hearing and some only on the day on-site. They were concerned about adequate notification to deal with them. In considering those matters the Court noted that all the immediate neighbours, and some others were present. They saw and heard the plans explained to the Court and accompanied the Court on-site during the hearing. The conclusion was reached that the changes were not so significant that their impacts could not be understood and addressed on the day of the hearing, and an adjournment for re-notification was not warranted.

17 For the most part the changes were responsive to the concerns of the objectors, and recommended by the Court appointed town planner Ms Laidlaw, who recommended approval of the proposal subject to appropriate conditions.

18 The Issues were:

1. Whether the SEPP No.1 objection seeking to vary the minimum allotment size standard under cl 14(2) of Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 (“HSLEP 1994”) is well founded.
2. Whether the proposed development satisfies objective (c) of the Residential A (Low Density) Zone in the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 1994 in that the development is not within the environmental capacity with low density residential environment, in view of the failure to comply with the minimum lot standard under the LEP.
3. Whether the proposed development will have an adverse visual impact on the streetscape by reason of the narrow widths of the proposed lots, the inadequate area of the proposed Lot 10 and the bulk and scale of the proposed dwellings.
4. Whether the proposed development complies with the “Design” element of the Low Density Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan in that the design of the buildings is not consistent with the dominant character of the area.
5. Whether the proposed subdivision pattern will result in lots which are inconsistent with the existing pattern of subdivision in the surrounding locality.
6. Whether the Consent Authority can be satisfied that a Part 3A Permit will be issued under the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 in respect of the works that are proposed within 40 m of the natural watercourse adjacent to the site.

19 The subject property was in the Residential A Low Density Zone of the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994. Multi-unit housing is permissible with consent in that zone. The parties agreed that the proposal met that definition. If the development were to be strata titled the applicable density would be one unit per 350 sq m or on this site seven units. Being subdivided under the Torrens Title the applicable density was one dwelling per 500 sq m. The development failed to meet that density as one lot which was 480 sq m in area for unit 5 was proposed. A State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection was tendered seeking an exception for it.

20 Being close to a watercourse the proposal is also integrated development and under the Rivers And Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources had been notified and had issued the requisite conditions included in the draft in Exhibit 7. These were in respect of the works near the watercourse, being, the construction of a storm water drain and an energy dissipater that proposed to discharge to the creek all the storm water from the site.

21 Having no direct frontage to the creek there was a need to obtain an easement across No.18 for the pipe. The pipe was to run along the inside of the back fence within the proposed lots, and enter No.18’s driveway and run along it for a distance, then cross into the Sydney Water land to the creek. The McMasters had given no consent for the easement and opposed it.

22 The respondent and the applicant agreed that if the Court was minded to approve the proposal, it should be by way of the deferred commencement condition. That meant that any consent would not operate unless an easement for the stormwater pipe were obtained. Apart from other matters the construction of the pipe would entirely block the driveway of No.18 during construction and suitable arrangements for access would have to be made.

23 The Court asked why the pipe had to travel along No.18’s driveway, it appeared simpler to just bore beneath it, cross under it and take a more direct route to the creek. The Court was told the Sydney Water easement contained large underground pressure mains that prevented a more direct route.

24 There were mature trees beside No.18’s driveway they would have to be retained. Any trench for the proposed storm water would encounter roots. If severed, the trees could die or become unstable. The Court was told boring of the pipe past the trees would minimise any potential risk to the trees, although it would extend the period needed for construction.

25 Apart from the storm water the McMasters were concerned about overlooking of their backyard, back terrace, kitchen and family rooms and the master bedroom and its balcony. In regard to the master bedroom they were concerned about persons on the rear deck of unit 1 being able to look across. Ms Laidlaw said the distance to the back fence from unit 1 was about 14 m. Landscape on the back fence would be 3 m high when grown.

26 The revised plan raised the lattice on the rear deck of unit 1 to reduce vision in the meantime. There was a mature ornamental tree existing in the backyard of unit 1. It was identified as T33 on the survey. It was seen on-site and provided the clothesline was relocated the tree could remain. It was deciduous and even without leaves as seen on the site the density of branches would provide considerable additional screening. The applicant sought to amend the plan in that way.

27 The McMasters said that aspect was better and the raised lattice on the rear decks of units 2, 3 and 4 also assisted on the same concern, however they believed unit 5 being elevated remained a concern.

28 On the McMasters’ back deck which was at the same floor level as their house, one could see into the backyards of units 3, 4 and 5. There was a trellis in the McMasters’ yard on the boundary of unit 4’s backyard. The trellis has a climbing rose on it that measured about 3 m to the top or about the same as the mature screen planting would be along the rear fence of the proposal.

29 The levels on the drawing show that the peak of the roof of unit 5 would be about 2.7 m higher than the existing ridge of house No.12. Currently over the top of the rose bush only the upper gable of No.12 could be seen. So those present could understand that if unit 5 was built and the screen vegetation grew to 3 m, then only the roof of unit 5 and the upper parts of its second storey walls would be seen from the McMasters’ rear deck, kitchen and family rooms.

30 There were two bedroom windows in that upper wall of unit 5. But the eye line of adults in the bedrooms would be below the height of the screen vegetation so persons especially children were unlikely to see across. Ms Laidlaw said the windows were 21 and 22 m from the back fence and the McMasters’ kitchen and family room were about 10 m from the boundary giving a separation of 30 m or more.

31 The Court was conscious that if the typical street is 18 m wide and standard front set backs are 6 m then, across the street, houses would have about 30 m separation. True in the McMasters’ case the separation was across backyards but the distance was considerable.

32 It was noted that due to the deciduous trees between windows at the rear of No.10 Morgan Street, beside unit 5 there was vision towards the McMasters’ rear yard. Due to the existing low fences and lack of boundary vegetation persons in the backyards in numbers 1 and 1A Dale Close had restricted vision in that direction also.

33 Ms Laidlaw said that the McMasters had been used to greater privacy than is usual in a suburban situation, and that would be reduced a little by the proposal. But, she said, given the new 1.8 m high boundary fence and the screen vegetation proposed, the existing mutual overlooking would be reduced. The new units would produce, on balance, something that was either equivalent to or only slightly less than the existing situation. If the vegetation grew high enough it could mean more privacy for the McMasters.

34 The McMasters said that it would take time for the 3 m high vegetation to grow, and the existing houses had been rented out, and the tenants had caused considerable disturbance in the past from noise and other activity. Mere vegetative screening would not solve that problem.

35 The applicant said the existing houses had long been in a poor state of repair such that Defence personnel were not asked to occupy them and they had been rented out on the open market. The new development would be occupied only by Defence personnel and their families, who, it was expected, would be good neighbours.

36 The applicant volunteered to install advanced growth screen vegetation 3 m high on the boundary to minimise growth time to maturity. The Court noted that the McMasters were on the north side of the proposal so shadows from screen vegetation would not affect their yard areas.

37 Mr Don at No.1A Dale Close had similar concerns to the McMasters in regard to overlooking from unit 5. His house had a small backyard so it was close to the east side boundary of unit 5 and closer than the McMasters to the elevated parts of unit 5. He was concerned persons in unit 5, would have the advantage of height and be able to look down into his children’s bedroom windows and the yard. Standing in his yard it was noted he had a garden shed in his south west corner that partly obscured any views from unit 5 and an existing mature tree on unit 5’s boundary provided some more screening. One of the two trees there was to be removed but a new tree was to be planted between the existing remaining tree and unit 5 and it would increase the vegetative screen.

38 The 3 m high boundary screen shrub planting and the 1.8 m high fence of the proposal would further reduce any vision into Mr Don’s backyard especially from the rear deck of unit 5.

39 Ms Laidlaw had asked for the lattice on the rear deck to be raised for greater privacy whilst the screen vegetation grew, and this had been done. She noted the distance of separation from the rear deck to the boundary at No.1A was about 6 m, but it was less than that between most neighbouring houses nearby where there was reciprocal overlooking of backyards. Once screen vegetation grew there would be no overlooking of Mr Don’s from the ground floor rear deck of the proposal. The upstairs bedroom windows would only have an oblique view through the branches of the existing and proposed trees. Bedrooms were mainly used at night and it was not usual to require privacy screening from them. In any case they were set back another 4 m from the closest part of the rear deck and so the separation distance to the nearest point of Mr Don’s yard was 10 m.

40 The usual AMCORD standard for privacy separation in medium density housing was 9 m, so Ms Laidlaw said given all the considerations, there was no impact on Mr Don’s privacy that would justify refusal. The other windows of unit 5 that looked towards Mr Don and No.10 Morgan Street were garage, laundry, bathroom and toilet windows, none of which posed privacy impact.

41 Another concern shared by Mr Don and the McMasters was the height and bulk of the proposal. The visual impact would be like a block of flats they thought. Ms Laidlaw said one of the things she looked at was the height of unit 5. She said the vehicle drive into it was at the maximum gradient allowed down from the street, so it could not be lowered unless the whole building was pushed further down the allotment. That would bring it into greater visual and privacy impacts on the neighbours. She said any new house in the proposed location of unit 5 was likely to be two storeys and have similar bulk. Unit 5 was not a large house so any alternative could have more floor space and be bigger.

42 Consideration of the neighbours by the placement of rooms within unit 5 and its windows to avoid overlooking was one benefit that might not occur in a different design. Also the rear 4 m section of the house was actually single storey elevated on foundations due to the slope of the land. But still it visually broke down the height of unit 5 because the tiled roof on the single storey section obscured most of the second storey wall and set the second storey roof further back. It was not unreasonable height and bulk she said.

43 The other units, 1, 2, 3 and 4, had a similar treatment on the elevation facing Mr Don and the McMasters, and they were considerably lower than unit 5. Again they had only bedroom windows at the second storey level facing those two neighbours, so privacy was not an issue. The ground floor windows and decks were too close to the ground to enable overlooking of the northern and eastern neighbours even before the screen vegetation grew.

44 Ms Laidlaw had raised the lattice screens on the sides of rear decks to ensure privacy between units and the landscape plan included screen vegetation between each backyard attached to the units so they achieved an acceptable level of suburban privacy as well.

45 Mr McMasters was concerned the rear elevation of the five townhouses were so close together they would read like a block of flats.

46 Ms Laidlaw understood that due to the slight fan shape of the lots, the gap between units 2 and 3 and between units 4 and 5 at the rear was 3 m in one case and 2½ m in the other. She noted that the separation was more than many detached houses had between them, and due to the single storey sections at the rear the points where the second storeys occurred were 3½ and 3 m apart respectively.

47 At the front elevation due to the fan shape of the lots, the gaps between the houses was 6 m at the second storey components. In that gap along the sides of the buildings was more landscaping and trees. Combined with the 3 m high vegetation along the side boundaries between each backyard of the units, there would be clear separation of the rear elevations so that units 1 and 2 were separate visually to units 3 and 4 and separate visually to unit 5. The views from the neighbours would be similar to seeing the backs of two large houses and one smaller house, not a block of flats.

48 Mrs Knights who lived across the street in No. 15 opposite units 1, 2, 3 and 4, had similar concerns about the visual appearance of the proposal from her house and in the streetscape. She and the other objectors said small lot development like this and semi-detached townhouses were out of character with anything else in the vicinity, and just on that basis should be rejected.

49 Part of her concern was generated by a new house built at her rear boundary on a battleaxe lot. It was new and was still for sale, advertised by a sign at the front describing it as a “Neo Tuscan Palace”. Mrs Knight’s house was close to her rear boundary, and the “palace” was two storeys straight up above a garage level with little more than a concrete driveway width between her boundary and the “palace”. It was very dominant and she feared a similar impact across the street.

50 Mrs Knights noted the landscape plan indicated only shrubs and driveways and lawn in the front setbacks of units 1, 2 and 3 in addition to two existing trees. She said the existing trees were so tall only their trunks grew in the view line from her house so the full elevation of units 1, 2 and 3 would be looking at her.

51 Unit 4 would be obscured by existing trees within its front setback and other vegetation on Mrs Knights’ land. Ms Laidlaw said Mrs Knights was actually opposite the 6 m gap between units 2 and 3 which would have hedge vegetation 3 m high on the boundary line between, and two trees. There would be clear separation between the buildings of units 1 and 2 and the building of units 3 and 4.

52 The objector said the proposal looked like project home designs and would be readily identifiable in the streetscape.

53 Ms Laidlaw said there was only one driveway to units 1 and 2 and one driveway to units 3 and 4. The front porch of units 1 and 4 had been relocated around to the side elevations so only one front door was obvious from the street in each building. The two garage doors side by side in each building looked like a double garage to a single house instead of being two tandem garages to separate townhouses. The tiled roofs and brick exteriors and window treatments reflected the typical facades seen in Morgan Street. The streetscape character in the vicinity of the proposal had many different houses, one and two storeys high, dating from about 1960s onwards. Some were on the high side of the road and some on the low side and some on the flat. Most of the subject site was on the low side of the street with large mature trees in the front setback. The proposal would not be dominant in Ms Laidlaw’s opinion. Some houses in the street were large and units 1 and 2 together and units 3 and 4 together would look similar to the large houses and to the casual passer by, appear like two houses not four townhouses.

54 Unit 5 being a detached house of medium size would fit in with the appearance of the medium sized houses in the street. Unit 5 being detached and a little higher than the other buildings, would not appear to be related to them once the project was finished and the separation between the buildings interspersed with the street front and side vegetation would prevent their looking like a block of flats.

55 Having regard to the merit matters and the evidence of Ms Laidlaw and the relevant development control plans, the Court does not think that the proposal, when seen in the streetscape, would be so out of character with the existing houses that it should be refused.

56 Also the proposal would provide acceptable amenity for its future occupants and the impacts on its neighbours would be minimal and acceptable such that it should not be refused in consequence of Issues 3, 4, 5 and 7.

57 In regard to Issue 6 the evidence was the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources did not see any cause to oppose the application subject to the relevant conditions being complied with. The council took the same position subject to the easement necessary for the stormwater pipe to the creek being obtained prior to any consent being activated.

58 On those bases the Court did not see Issue 6 as a reason to refuse the proposal. The easement through the McMasters’ land was feasible so long as their concerns were properly considered and given reasonable satisfaction in any easement granted.

59 This left Issues 1 and 2 as those upon which the appeal should be determined. Since it involved a State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection to unit 5 having a 480 sq m allotment, the Court went to the objectives of the Local Environmental Plan and that standard.

60 The applicable objectives of the Hornsby Local Environment Plan 1994 in respect of the proposal are clause 2(1)(b)(c) and (d), which intended to protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the area, and to facilitate the orderly and economic development of land within the area, and to promote wellbeing of the areas population. Clause 2(2)(b) also applied which intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas and the heritage of the area.

61 The next objectives relevant to the matter were those for the Residential (a) Low Density Zone which stated:

a) To provide the housing needs of the population of the Hornsby area,

b) To promote a variety of housing types and other land uses compatible with a low density residential environment and

62 The proposal as multi-unit housing under the definition is permissible with consent. Clause 14(2) sets the 500 sq m per lot minimum area for subdivision. Clause 14(4) sets the minimum lot size for multi unit developments for each house is to have a separate lot of 500 sq m minimum. Clause 15(1) sets the maximum floor space ratio of 0.4 to 1 and all units comply with that. Unit 5 is calculated at 0.38 to 1.

63 The purpose of the minimum lot size is stated as:

“To provide for the development of land at a density that is in accordance with the environmental capacity and the zone objectives.”

64 The Court notes that cl 15(4) requires that the area of any access way or right of carriage way is to be excluded from the calculation of floor space ratio. There is a need for units 1 and 2 and units 3 and 4 to have reciprocal rights of way over their shared driveways but that was not raised as an issue in these proceedings and the Court does not take it into account.

65 To understand the density standard further, the Court looked at the Subdivision Development Control Plan element on density. Its purpose was stated as:

“To promote a low density residential environment and provide for lots of sufficient size to satisfy user requirements.”

66 In the Low Density Multi-unit Housing Development Control Plan the purpose was:

“To control the density of development to promote a low density residential environment and to provide lots of a sufficient size to satisfy user requirements and to enable flexibility in housing design.”

67 It is to be noted the latter objectives were written with the multi-unit density of one unit per 350 sq m in mind. The proposal for unit 5 is substantially above that at 1 unit per 480 sq m and of course units 1 to 4 comply.

68 Therefore it is clear that non-compliance of unit 5 with the density control is very minor at 4% below 500 sq m. The other merit evidence showed there was good provision of area for user requirements as were set out in the Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan and the Low Density Multi-unit Housing Development Control Plan.

69 The Court agrees with Ms Laidlaw’s conclusion that:

“The SEPP 1 objection is well founded primarily because the proportions of the site and the resultant allotments are conducive to maintaining a low density character and because the particular design has incorporated measures to promote this character. I do not believe there are any issues of environmental capacity that would justify a requirement for strict adherence to the standard, particularly as strict adherence would in effect require only four lots, all lots significantly greater area than the minimum anticipated by the LEP, namely 620 sq m. Further the development clearly provides for the housing needs for the Hornsby area and no clearly defined town planning or environmental benefit would flow from a requirement to reduce the number of dwellings or lots by one.”

70 Therefore the Court has determined that the State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection is upheld and the orders of the Court are:

K G Hoffman

Commissioner of the Court

rjs

Annexure “A”

Conditions of Deferred Development Consent

Defence Housing Authority v Hornsby Shire Council

Lots 9, 10 & 11, DP 237021 known as Nos. 12,14 and 16 Morgan Street, Thornleigh, DA 1944/2003

The development being for the demolition of three existing dwellings and erection of five multi-unit dwellings and Torrens Title subdivision of 3 lots into 5 is consented to as a deferred commencement consent pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, generally in accordance with plans identified in Schedule 1 hereto, as amended by and subject to the following conditions:

1. This consent shall have no force or effect until the following information is submitted to Hornsby Council:

Upon receipt of the above information the following conditions will apply:-

GENERAL

2. The finished surface materials, including colours and texture of any building and/or hard paved areas, shall blend with the surrounding environment and shall be non-glare.

BUILDING

Site Works

3. No site works, including the removal of vegetation or any demolition works, shall be commenced prior to:

3.1 A construction certificate being issued.
3.2 Sediment and erosion control measures have been implemented;

Principal Certifying Authority

4. Before any construction works commence, you are required to appoint a Principal Certifying Authority as required by section 81A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. The Principal Certifying Authority is responsible for ensuring that all the works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Notifying Council of Commencement of Works

5. It is a requirement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, section 81A(2)(c) that you notify Hornsby Council at least two (2) days prior to the intention to commence works.

Where works are to be undertaken in a public place, such notice must be accompanied by evidence of the contractor's Public Liability and Workers’ Compensation Insurances. The public risk policy shall be such an amount as determined by Council (not being less than $10,000,000.00) and shall cover the owner and the Council against any injury, loss or damage sustained by any person, firm or company.

Building Code of Australia

6. All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

Should there be any alternative solutions listed as Category 2 Fire Safety Provisions and outlined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, a fire engineering report should be forwarded to the Brigades for comment under Clause 144 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Council Property

7. The land and adjoining areas are to be kept in a clean and tidy condition at all times. Litter and rubbish shall be placed in containers and removed from the site. A waste storage container is to be provided at the commencement of the building work.

8. The cost of repairing any damage caused to Council's assets as a result of construction works associated with the approved development is to be met in full by the applicant/developer prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.

Sediment & Erosion Control

9. Temporary sedimentation and erosion controls are to be constructed prior to commencement of any work to eliminate the discharge of sediment from the site. The controls are to be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Department of Conservation and Land Management's "Urban Erosion and Sediment Control" manual, Hornsby Shire Council’s “Sustainable Water Best Practices” manual and shall: -

* be effectively maintained at all times during the course of works and shall not be removed until the site has been stabilised or landscaped to the Principal Certifying Authority’s satisfaction.

* include adequate measures to remove clay from vehicles leaving the site so as to maintain public roads in a clean condition.
* ensure disturbed areas are rehabilitated with indigenous plant species, landscaped and treated by approved methods of erosion mitigation such as, mulching, and revegetation with native grasses or other suitable stabilising processes within fifteen days of the completion of works.

Hours of Demolition Works

10. In order to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties, demolition works shall be restricted to between 7.00 am and 6.00 pm. No demolition works are to be undertaken on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays. Plant, goods or materials shall not be delivered to the site outside the approved hours of site works unless written Council gives consent.

Demolition

11. All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the applicable provisions of Australian Standard 2601-2001 ‘The Demolition of Structures’ and in accordance with the Demolition and Construction Management Plan referred to in Schedule A.

Note : Applicants are reminded that WorkCover NSW requires all plant and equipment used in demolition work must comply with the relevant Australian Standards and manufacturer specifications.

Dust Control

12. Measures to prevent the emission of dust or other impurities into the surrounding environment are to be implemented during demolition works.

Disconnection of Utilities

13. All utilities shall be disconnected in a satisfactory manner so as not to pose any risk or nuisance to the public.

Asbestos Removal

14. Prior to commencement of any work involving the demolition, alteration or addition to any building on the development site, a survey is to be conducted by a competent person to ascertain whether any asbestos materials exist thereon. Asbestos material means any material that contains asbestos.

15. Where asbestos material is found to exist on the development site and that asbestos material is to be removed or disturbed as a result of any proposed demolition, alteration or addition, then all work involving removal and disposal of asbestos material must be undertaken by persons who hold the appropriate licence issued by WorkCover NSW under Chapter 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001.

16. The collection, storage, transportation or disposal of any type of asbestos waste is to comply with the requirements of clause 29 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

17. Upon completion of disposal operations, the applicant must lodge with the principal certifying authority, within seven (7) days, all receipts (or certified photocopies) issued by the receiving landfill site as evidence of proper disposal.

Note : The person responsible for disposing of the asbestos material shall consult with the Environment Protection Authority to determine the location of an approved landfill site to receive asbestos material.

Signs for Demolition Sites

18. On construction sites where buildings contain asbestos material, a standard commercially manufactured sign containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ measuring not less than 400mm x 300mm is to be erected on the site in a prominent position visible from the street. The sign is to be erected prior to any work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos material has been removed from the site to an approved waste facility. This condition is imposed for the purpose of worker and public safety and to ensure compliance with Clause 259(2)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001.

19. A sign must be erected in a prominent position on the premises, on which the demolition of a building is being carried out, stating that unauthorised entry to the premises is prohibited and showing the name of the builder or other person in control of the premises and a telephone number at which the builder or other person may be contacted during and outside work hours. The sign is to be removed when the demolition of the building has been completed.

Hours of Construction

20. In order to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties, site works shall be restricted to between 7.00 am and 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 1.00 pm Saturday. No work shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays. Plant, goods or materials shall not be delivered to the site outside the approved hours of site works unless otherwise approved by Council.

Engineers Certifications -Building

21. A qualified practising chartered Structural Engineer shall inspect the slab steel reinforcement prior to the pouring of any concrete and supply the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy to Hornsby Shire Council with a certification of structural adequacy.

Inspections – Building

22. The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority at the following stages certifying that the works comply with the development consent and the approved plans and specifications for the following nominated stages:-

* The reinforcing steelwork (i.e. strip footings and each floor slab) when in position and before concrete is placed.

* Retaining walls / underpinning when in position and before concrete is placed.

* The framework including roof members when completed and prior to the fixing of any internal sheets.

* The wet areas, the when water proofing membrane has been installed in accordance with the Building Code of Australia Part 3.8.1, "Wet Areas ".

* Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling of trenches.

* The building or structure when completed and before occupation or use is commenced.

It is the responsibility of the builder/applicant to organise the required inspections. Should Council be nominated as the certifier of works, inspections can be arranged by contacting Council on 9847 6760 during normal business hours.
Subterranean Termites

23. The building shall be treated against subterranean termites in accordance with AS 3660 Part 1, "Protection of Buildings from Subterranean Termites ".

24. Certificates of treatment shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Hornsby Council and a notice of treatment, in accordance with the standard shall be affixed to the building. (Building Code of Australia Clause B1.1, B1.3.)

Toilet Facilities

25. Closet accommodation is to be provided at the work site at all times and be located wholly within the boundaries of the property.

Smoke Alarms

26. Smoke alarms shall be installed in the building in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. A certificate from a licensed electrician certifying that the smoke alarms have been connected to the consumer mains power is to be submitted to Hornsby Council with the occupation certificate.

Subterranean Termites

27. The building shall be treated against subterranean termites in accordance with AS 3660 Part 1, "Protection of Buildings from Subterranean Termites".

28. Certificates of treatment shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Hornsby Council and a notice of treatment, in accordance with the standard shall be affixed to the building. (Building Code of Australia Clause B1.1, B1.3.)

Sydney Water

29. The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. The approved plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at then see Building & Renovating under the heading Building & Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

The consent authority or a private accredited certifier must ensure that a Quick check agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the issue of any Construction Certificate.

Home Building Act 1989

30. The builder or person who does the residential building work must comply with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 and must not contract to do any residential building work unless a contract of insurance that complies with that Act is in force in relation to the proposed work. A copy of the contract of insurance shall be submitted to Hornsby Council before any works commence.

Long Service Levy

31. Under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 any work costing $25,000 or more is subject to a Long Service Levy. The levy rate is 0.2% of the total cost of the work and shall be paid to either the Long Service Payments Corporation or Hornsby Shire Council. Under section 109F (1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 this payment must be made prior to a construction certificate being issued.

Retaining Walls

32. Retaining walls or other approved methods necessary to prevent the movement of excavated or filled ground, are to be constructed together with associated stormwater drainage measures prior to occupation of the development or before where site conditions require.

Energy Efficiency and Services

33. To meet the requirements of the Hornsby Shire Energy Efficient Housing Code:

* showers are to be fitted with AAA - rated water efficient shower heads.

* hand basin and kitchen taps are to be fitted with six litre per minute flow regulators.

* insulation shall be provided to the walls to achieve a rating of R1.5

* energy efficient light fittings shall be provided.

* doors seals shall be provided to all external doors.

Noise

34. The use of amplified equipment, such as radios and the like during construction stage shall not be used where the noise is audible on any neighbouring property.

Landscaping

35. All natural landscape features, including natural rock outcrops, natural vegetation, soil and watercourses, are to remain undisturbed except where affected by necessary works detailed on approved plans.

36. The area surrounding the building shall be reinstated to good order as soon as practical after the completion of site works including, where necessary, the establishment of new landscaping.

37. The natural ground levels of private open space areas are not to be altered unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans.

House Numbering

38 House numbering can only be authorised by Hornsby Shire Council. Before proceeding to number each lot/occupancy in your development, approval must be sought from Council’s Planning Division.

Occupation

39. The building or part thereof shall not be occupied until an occupation certificate has been issued in accordance with Sections 109C and 109H of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

WATER CATCHMENTS

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

40. The following sediment control measures shall be provided in conjunction with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

Stormwater Flow Dissipation

41. All headwall outlets shall incorporate flow velocities reduction controls (i.e. bedded boulders and small stones) minimising erosive and scouring impacts to the watercourse. Accordingly, energy dissipator controls shall be landscaped to accommodate outlet sheet flow. No engineering works are permitted within the bed of the watercourse.

Overland Flow Paths / Grass Swales

42. Grass swales should be designed to carry the 100 year ARI storm event. In high flow areas turf should be pinned through topsoil to natural ground at 1 pin per square metre.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

43. The site is to be serviced by Council or its authorised Contractor.

LANDSCAPE

44. Any Onsite detention System (OSD) shall be designed to allow minimum 500mm soil depth for shrubs and minimum 1000mm soil depth for feature tree planting (if proposed over or adjacent to OSD).

45. All landscape works shall meet the minimum requirements identified in the Hornsby Shire Council Landscape Code for Development and Building approvals including the construction of mulched planter beds, planting of trees in minimum 35 Litre pot sizes, shrubs in minimum 5 Litre pot sizes and groundcovers in minimum 150mm pot sizes in the densities identified in the submitted planting specification. The screen vegetation to the eastern boundary of the lot for Unit 5 and the northern boundary of the lots for Units 1 to 5 shall be carried out with advanced hedge and tree species a minimum of 2 m high at planting.

PARKS AND LANDSCAPE

46. The removal of trees numbered 1, 6, 12-15, 19, 20, 25, 30, 31 and 33 or the excavation or filling of soil or the placing of any building materials or associated works (i.e. water, sewer, gas, telephone, drainage) within 4 metres of the trunk of the tree is forbidden without the written consent of Council.

Note: The retention of Tree 33 requires the relocation of the clothes line and path in the rear yard of Unit 1.

47. Trees numbered 1, 6, 12-15, 19, 20, 25, 30, 31 and 33 shall be protected during site works and construction by the erection of solid barricades i.e. 1.8 metre cyclone chain mesh fence or plywood hoarding fences to 1.2 metres at 4 metres distance from the trunk/s of such trees.

All tree protection measures so approved and installed, shall be maintained in good working order and repair throughout the course of building or development works.

48. All existing trees shall be retained in accordance with Hornsby Shire Council’s Tree Preservation Order, except where Council’s prior written consent has been obtained, or where after approval of the relevant Engineering Plans, trees stand within the envelope of approved buildings or within the alignment of approved permanent paved vehicle access roads.

59. Proposed works undertaken within the nominated restriction zone of trees numbered 6 and 19 must be hand dug with no root greater than 50 millimetres severed. A qualified and experienced arborist is to be on site overseeing the work to ensure that any roots cut are cut cleanly and that the works will not adversely affect the longevity of the tree.

BUSHLAND AND DIVERSITY

50. All noxious and invasive weeds are to be removed from the site prior to construction.

51. All erosion and sediment controls (i.e. geotextile sediment fence and straw bales) shall be in place before any works begin so as to protect the adjacent downstream bushland.

52. The applicant is to ensure that no building materials, stockpiles or fill encroaches upon retained trees for the duration of the works.

ENGINEERING

Construction Certificate – Subdivision/Engineering Works

53. A construction certificate must be obtained from either Council or an Accredited Certifier. Engineering design plans and specifications are to be prepared by a chartered professional engineer for any proposed works. The plans and specifications are to be in accordance with development consent conditions, appropriate Australian standards, and applicable Council standards, in particular “Hornsby Shire Council Civil Works - Design and Construction Specification”. Information required to be submitted with a construction certificate is as follows:

(a) copies of compliance certificates relied upon

(b) Four (4) copies of the detailed engineering plans in accordance Hornsby Shire Council's Civil Works - Design Specification 1999. The detailed plans may include but are not limited to the earthworks, roadworks, road pavements, road furnishings, stormwater drainage, landscaping and erosion control works.

Principal Certifying Authority

54. Before any construction works commence, you are required to appoint a Principal Certifying Authority as required by section 81A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. The Principal Certifying Authority is responsible for ensuring that all the works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

On the date of this consent, Council is the only principal certifying authority for subdivision work. Council requires that the applicant enter into a deed of agreement identifying each party’s responsibilities prior to the commencement of subdivision work.

Notifying Council of Commencement of Works

55. It is a requirement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (Section 81A(2)(c)) that you notify Hornsby Council at least two (2) days prior to the intention to commence works.

Where works are to be undertaken in a public place, such notice must be accompanied by evidence of the contractor's Public Liability and Workers’ Compensation Insurances. The public risk policy shall be such an amount as determined by Council (not being less than $10,000,000.00) and shall cover the owner and the Council against any injury, loss or damage sustained by any person, firm or company.

Dust Control

56. Measures to prevent the emission of dust or other impurities into the surrounding environment are to be implemented during demolition/excavation/construction works.

Hours of Construction

57. In order to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties, site works shall be restricted to between 7.00 am and 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 1.00 pm Saturday. Site works may extend to 4.00 pm on Saturdays if inaudible on residential properties. No work shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays. Plant, goods or materials shall not be delivered to the site outside the approved hours of site works unless otherwise approved by Council.

Engineering Works

58. A separate application under the Local Government Act 1993 and Roads Act 1993 shall be submitted to Council for approval for the following:

(a) the installation of a vehicular footway crossing servicing the development, and the removal of any redundant crossings.
(b) the undertaking of work within a public road ( this includes Laneways, Public Pathways, Footways).

59. The cost of repairing any damage caused to Council's assets in the vicinity of the subject site as a result of construction works associated with the approved development is to be paid for by the applicant/developer prior to occupation or issue of a subdivision certificate, whichever occurs first.

60. Construction of the inter-allotment stormwater drainage system to service the subdivision in accordance with the Hornsby Shire Council Civil Design Specification.

61. The drainage system is to be constructed within Lots 13 &14 with an on-site-detention system, having a capacity of not less than 5 m3 and a maximum discharge, when full, of 8 litres. The system shall be designed by a chartered professional civil engineer to the following requirements:

* A surcharge/inspection grate is to be located directly above the outlet.

* Stormwater discharge from the detention system is to be controlled via a one metre length of pipe not less than 50mm diameter discharging into a larger diameter pipe capable of carrying the design flow to Council's gutter/stormwater pit.

* Where the on-site detention system is proposed under the vehicular driveway, the engineer is to certify that the detention tank is structurally capable of withstanding the maximum anticipated traffic loads.
* The on-site detention systems within private or common courtyard areas must be designed so they do not impact on the amenity of the development or the use of such areas.

A compliance certificate is to be submitted to Council which includes work-as-executed details of the on-site-detention system prepared by a chartered professional engineer/registered surveyor verifying that the required storage and discharge volumes have been constructed in accordance with the design requirements. The details are to show the invert levels of the on system as well as the pipe sizes and grades. Any variations to approved plans must be shown in red and supported by calculations.

62. A Traffic Control Plan (TCP), prepared by a qualified work site traffic controller, is to be submitted with any construction certificate, demonstrating compliance with the Road & Traffic Authority’s Traffic Control At Worksites Manual, 1998, and detailing:-

(a) Public notification of proposed works.
(b) Long term signage arrangement.
(c) Short term (during actual works) signage.
(d) Vehicle Movement Plans, where applicable.
(e) Traffic Management Plans.
(f) Pedestrian and cyclist access/safety.

63. All engineering work required by this consent must be inspected and compliance certificates shall be issued prior to occupancy or issue of the subdivision certificate, whichever occurs first, certifying that the works comply with development consent, construction certificate and Hornsby Shire Council Civil Works - Design and Construction Specification for the following nominated stages:

- Implementation of erosion control
- Implementation of traffic control
- Boxing out
- Excavated trench and before backfilling
- Pipes before backfilling
- Sand backfilling
- Final pipe inspection
- Pits base
- Pit walls
- Interallotment drainage pipes
- Interallotment pit construction
- Final erosion control inspection
- Replacement of redundant gutter crossing
- On-site detention - when steel & formwork for tank is ready

- When control pit is completed
- When pit's formwork is ready
- When pipes are laid before backfilling
- For pipe laid across Council's land
- At completion of on-site detention system

- Driveways and accessways
- Final inspection

Subdivision Certificate

64. Lodgement and approval of a subdivision certificate is required to authorise the Plan of Subdivision. The subdivision certificate must include details of all proposed easements.

65. All conditions of the development consent are to be completed prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate.

66. The following documentary evidence is to be obtained and forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the subdivision certificate:-

(a) Submission of a surveyor’s certificate stating that all structures within the subject land comply with the development consent in regard to clearance from proposed new boundaries.
(b) The submission of a surveyor’s certificate stating that no services, drainage lines or access way encroach over the proposed boundary other than as provided for by easements created by the final plan of subdivision.

Easements & Restrictions on Title

67. Any easement(s) or restriction(s) on Title required by this consent must nominate Hornsby Shire Council as the authority to release, vary or modify the easement(s) or restriction(s).

68. (a) All Section 88B restrictions and covenants created as part of this consent are to contain a provision that they cannot be extinguished or altered except with the consent of Hornsby Shire Council.

(b) Reciprocal rights of way to be granted between the allotments for Units 1 and 2, and between the allotments for Units 3 and 4 to give each lot vehicle and pedestrian access over the whole of the driveway surfaces of the respective other.

69. No excavation is to occur within the easement for support unless supported by a report from a geotechnical engineer certifying that the road batter will not be impacted by the works.

Works As Executed

70. A works-as-executed plan prepared by a chartered professional engineer or a registered surveyor must be lodged with Hornsby Shire Council when the engineering works are complete, prior to the release of the subdivision certificate.

71. A compliance certificate shall be submitted (prior to the release of the subdivision certificate) by a registered surveyor indicating that all pipelines and associated structures lie wholly within any easements required by this consent.

CONTRIBUTIONS

72. The payment of a contribution towards the cost of transport and traffic management, open space and recreation facilities, library and community facilities, bushland and environmental works, stormwater drainage, bushfire protection and Section 94 administration in accordance with Sections 94, 94B and 94C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and Hornsby Shire Council’s Development Contributions Plan 2004-2010. The total contribution shall be $23,865.10 if paid prior to 30 June 2005. Following this date, contributions will be adjusted in accordance with the underlying consumer price index for the subsequent financial years, it being noted that there are:-

This amount is to be paid to Council prior to issue of the construction certificate or the subdivision certificate, whichever occurs first

Note

DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE, PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES

73. All works proposed must be designed, constructed and operated to minimise sedimentation, erosion and scour of the banks or bed of the watercourse/foreshore and to minimise adverse impacts on aquatic and riparian environments.

74. Erosion and sediment control measures are to be implemented prior to any works commencing at the site and must be maintained, for as long as necessary after the completion of works, to prevent sediment and dirty water entering the watercourse/foreshore environment. These control measures are to be in accordance with the requirements of the Council or the consent authority and best management practices as outlined in the NSW Department of Housing’s ‘Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction’ Manual (1998) the ‘Blue Book’.

75. The Part 3A Permit from the Department is issued for works on FREEHOLD land only. This Permit is null and void for any works on Crown Land.

76. Rehabilitation of the area in accordance with the Part 3A Permit Conditions or any direction from the Department is the responsibility of the Permit holder and owner or occupier of the land.

77. Work as executed survey plans of a professional standard and including information required by the Department shall be provided to the Department on request.

78. If, in the opinion of a DIPNR Officer, works are carried out in such a manner that they may damage or adversely affect the watercourse or foreshore environment, the Department Officer may issue an oral or written direction to immediately stop all work/s.

79. If any of the DIPNR Part 3A Permit Conditions are breached, the Permit holder shall restore the site in accordance with these Conditions and any other remedial actions as directed by the Department. If any breach of the Part 3A Permit Conditions requires a site inspection by the Department, then the permit holder shall pay a fee prescribed by the Department for this inspection and all subsequent breach inspections.

80. Details of any stormwater outlet to the creek (which must be constructed to prevent erosion or scour of the bank) are to be submitted to DIPNR for approval prior to the issue of permit. The stormwater outlet to the watercourse should be designed, located and constructed to minimise any erosion or scour of the banks or bed of the watercourse and the construction technique adopted is to ensure that disturbance to the banks soil and vegetation is kept to an absolute minimum. The stormwater outlet is to be of a soft engineering design and should address the requirements of the DIPNR guideline on Stormwater Outlet Structures to Streams (Attachment A).

81. Any disturbed areas adjacent to the watercourse are to be revegetated using a diverse range of native plant species propagated from local genetic stock. A rehabilitation plan covering any disturbed areas in the riparian zone, addressing the requirements of the DIPNR guideline on Watercourse and Riparian Zone Rehabilitation Requirements (Attachment B), is to be submitted to DIPNR for approval prior to the issue of permit. The disturbed areas must be revegetated for a minimum distance of 10 metres measured from the edge of the disturbance.

82. Evidence of Owner’s Consent for any proposed easement to drain water over any neighbouring lot is required prior to the issue of the permit.

83. A Soil and Water Management Plan (S&WMP) for all site works is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of Council and DIPNR and approved by DIPNR prior to the issue of the 3A permit. The S&WMP is to meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 3 of the NSW Department of Housing’s “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” (1998) manual (the "Blue Book").
(i) SCHEDULE 1 – APPROVED PLANS

1. Survey Plan no. 20/5584-1 issue C prepared by John G Nelson Pty Limited.
2. Site Analysis and Site Plan no. 22243-22245 inclusive issue F prepared by Huxley Homes.
3. Architectural Plan of units 1 and 2 no. 22243 issue F prepared by Huxley Homes.
4. Architectural Plan of units 3 and 4 no. 22244 issue D prepared by Huxley Homes.
5. Architectural Plan of unit 5 no. 22245 issue D prepared by Huxley Homes.
6. Elevations and driveway gradients plan no. 22243-22245 inclusive issue F prepared by Huxley Homes.
7. Drainage Concept Plan no. 20/5584-2 issue B dated 11/3/2003 prepared by John G Nelson Pty Limited.
8. Demolition and Construction Management Plan prepared by Huxley Homes dated November 2003.
9. Electrical layout plans no. 22243-22245 (issue A) inclusive prepared by Huxley Homes.
10. Landscape concept plan no. 030302 issue DWG no. LCP.01/C dated September, 2003 prepared by Botanica.
11. Soil and water management plan no. 20/5584-3 issue A prepared by John G Nelson Pty Limited.
12. Waste management plan no. 22243-22254 inclusive prepared by Huxley Homes.
13. Shadow diagrams no. 22243-22245 inclusive issue E prepared by Huxley Homes.

K G Hoffman

Commissioner of the Court

rjs

CITATION:	Defence Housing Authority v Hornsby Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 648
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Defence Housing Authority RESPONDENT Hornsby Shire Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10831 of 2004
CORAM:	Hoffman C
KEY ISSUES:	Development Application :- Demolition of three houses - erection of two sets of semi-detached houses and one detached house - easement for stormwater - overlooking - height - bulk - character of locality versus character of proposal - the allotment for the detach house is undersize
LEGISLATION CITED:	Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	05/10/2004
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	11/01/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Ms S Duggan, barrister SOLICITORS Piper Alderman RESPONDENT Mr I Woodward, solicitor SOLICITORS Storey & Gough