Hickson v Woollahra Municipal Council

[2008] NSWLEC 1275

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Hickson v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 1275

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Lisa Hickson

RESPONDENT
Woollahra Municipal Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10209 of 2008

CORAM:

Tuor C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Consent :- Alterations and additions to existing terrace, consent orders
impact on heritage significance of conservation area

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

DATES OF HEARING:

17/06/2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

17 June 2008

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr I. Hemmings, barrister
Instructed by Mr G. Baron
of Baron & Associates

RESPONDENT
Mr S. Simmington, solicitor
of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Tuor C

17 June 2008

10209 of 2008 Lisa Hickson v Woollahra Municipal Council

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal against the refusal by Woollahra Municipal Council (council) of an application under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to modify a development consent (334/2006) for alterations and additions at 56 Moncur Street, Woollahra (the site). The s96 application seeks approval for works not approved under the development consent, which have been constructed.

2 There are no objectors to the proposal and the issues between the parties have been resolved and they are seeking consent orders from the Court.

3 The site, its context, the history of the proposal and the planning controls are in the Statement of Facts and Contentions. The key issue that was in dispute between the parties was whether the changes to the roof form would have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area.

4 The Court visited the site. Statements of evidence and a joint report were provided by Mr Staas, for the applicant, and Ms Thom, for the council, on the heritage issues. These experts initially disagreed on the appropriateness of replacing the existing skillion butterfly roof with a new gable roof form. The experts, based on further information from a resident, Mr Simpson (Exhibit B), have now agreed that the skillion roof form and changes to the front façade were early changes to the building and that the original roof form was likely to have been a pitched roof and similar to the form now being sought. The experts have therefore agreed that the changes would have an acceptable impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area. I accept this opinion.

5 The other issues in dispute were a legal issue, which has been resolved between the parties and an issue of whether the proposal was substantially the same development, which has not been pressed by the council.

6 I am satisfied, therefore, that the consent orders sought by the parties may be issued.

7 The Court orders by consent that:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Consent is granted to the s 96 modification No. 06/334/2 dated 30 October 2007.

3. Development Consent No. 06/334 issued on 9 May 2007 is modified by the deletion of Condition A.3 and its replacement by Condition A.3 in “Attachment 1”.

4. The exhibits may be returned except Exhibits 1 and C.

5. The Court notes that the parties have agreed that each party will pay their own costs.

___________________

Annelise Tuor
Commissioner of the Court