J C S Developments Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council

Case •

[2004] NSWLEC 35

•

02/10/2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: J C S Developments Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 35
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
J C S Developments Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Sutherland Shire Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10565 of 2003
CORAM: Watts C
KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- Dwelling house and swimming pool
Heritage conservation
Foreshore scenic protection
Height of development

Density of development
Site analysis - and
Urban bushland
LEGISLATION CITED: State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas, (SEPP19)
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2000, (SSLEP)
Sutherland Shire Draft Local Environmental Plan 2003 or 'The People's Plan', (draft SSLEP2003)
Sutherland Shire Council's Development Control Plan No 9.02/02 - Dwelling Houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell,
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 79C and 97
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING: 22, 23 and 27/01/2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/10/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


APPLICANT
Mr C J Leggat, barrister instructed by
Mr C Shaw, solicitor
for Phillips Fox

RESPONDENT
Mr J A Cole, solicitor
for Abbott Tout



JUDGMENT:


IN THE LAND AND


ENVIRONMENT COURT


OF NEW SOUTH WALES

10565 of 2003

Watts C

10 February 2004

J C S Developments Pty Limited

Applicant

v

Sutherland Shire Council

Respondent


      Introduction

1 This is an appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the deemed refusal by Sutherland Shire Council (the council) of a development application to demolish an existing dwelling house and swimming pool and to erect a two-storey dwelling house with basement and new swimming pool at Lot B in DP 349247 and Lots 11 & 12 in DP 10823, being Nos 60-64 Glaisher Parade, Cronulla.

2 I visited the land in company with the parties on the morning of the first day of the hearing. Evidence of local residents was taken on the site inspection.

3 I have concluded that the application should fail as it would encroach onto the visual catchment of Salmon Haul Reserve, would appear as a prominent element in the landscape when viewed from Port Hacking and block views from neighbouring properties.


    The land

4 The land is situated on the southern side of Glaisher Parade, and falls about 10m from the Glaisher Parade frontage to the level of Salmon Haul Reserve abutting the rear (southern) boundary of the land.

5 The land has a frontage to Glaisher Parade of 46.22m, a width equivalent to three (3) standard residential allotments and an area of some 2,483.9m2.

6 Erected on an excavated and filled platform in the middle of the land is a single-storey brick and tile dwelling house. The existing dwelling is accessed from a ramped driveway that extends across the frontage of the land. A swimming pool is located on the northern sunny side of the existing dwelling near the driveway.

7 The rear of the land is filled to between 1m and 1.5m supported by a retaining wall constructed on the common boundary with the public reserve. The reserve includes a walkway, seats, and various links to adjoining streets. The existing dwelling is substantially screened from viewpoints in the public reserve by vegetation, growing mainly within the reserve.

8 Two existing two-storey dwelling houses flank the land. The adjoining dwellings are erected close to the street, and the dwelling to the east is erected close to natural ground levels.

9 The locality is characterised by a wide variety of residential development. Two-storey buildings are common, and building height is exaggerated in places by the fall of the land. Glaisher Parade dwellings address the street especially on the high northern side.


      Relevant planning controls
      State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 -Bushland in Urban Areas, (SEPP19)

10 SEPP19 aims to protect and preserve bushland and applies to bushland or private land adjoining bushland, where development might impact on the environmental integrity of the bushland within the urban areas of Sutherland Shire.

11 Salmon Haul Reserve is remnant bushland under SEPP19.

12 The aims and objectives of cl 2 of SEPP19 relate to the protection and preservation of urban bushland. Specific aims (a), (g), (l) and (n) focus on the conservation of the outstanding heritage, scenic and environmental qualities of bushland potentially affected by proposed development.

13 ‘Bushland’ is defined by cl 4 of SEPP19 as “…land on which there is vegetation which is either a remainder of the natural vegetation of the land or, if altered, is still representative of the structure and ‘floristics’ of the natural vegetation”.

14 Clause 6 of SEPP19 requires the applicant to obtain consent to disturb bushland zoned or reserved for public open space including Salmon Haul Reserve.

15 Under cl 9 of SEPP19 the land adjoins bushland zoned or reserved for public open space purposes being Salmon Haul Reserve.

    Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2000 , (SSLEP)

16 The land is zoned Residential 2(e1) under the provisions of the SSLEP and the proposal as a dwelling house is permissible with consent. The land is within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

17 The land under cl 33 (Part 3) of SSLEP is described as within ‘…a residential environment in an environmentally and visually sensitive locality’.

18 The objectives under cl 2 of SSLEP strongly focus on the achievement of sustainable development and the conservation of the environment.

19 Clause 5 of SSLEP relevantly defines ‘dwelling house’; ‘floor space ratio’, (FSR); ‘gross floor area’, (GFA); ‘height’ and ‘landscaped area’.

20 Clause 14 of SSLEP addresses protection of items of heritage and relics (including landscape and archaeological items) as described in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Plan. The land adjoins Salmon Haul Reserve, an item of regional landscape heritage significance (Item L060-R) under Schedule 2 of the Plan. Clause 14 of SSLEP requires the consent authority to consider the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the adjoining reserve and also the items of heritage within it. Mr Vickas for the council, describes this reserve:


          ...the immediate foreshore (now known as Salmon Haul Reserve) encompassing Bass and Flinders Point and Salmon Haul Bay have been substantially remediated over the last twenty years with excellent native bush replanting to reinvigorate its original landscape values, and the vehicular esplanade has been downgraded into a less dominating public access walkway that winds its way around the peninsula. In this regard, it is not only an outstanding public realm location with regional cultural and heritage significance; it is also a public place and foreshore reserve of considerable inspirational qualities. Appropriately, therefore, Bass and Flinders Point and Salmon Haul Reserve (that adjoins the subject property) are designated items of regional landscape heritage significance (Item L060-R) under Schedule 2 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (SSLEP) 2000. Also, the Bass and Flinders Memorial (just to the east of the subject property) is a designated item of archaeological heritage (Item A055) under Schedule 1 of SSLEP 2000, as are the remains of the nearby Salmon Haul ocean wharf (Item A027) just to the south-west of the subject property.

21 Clause 19 of SSLEP deals with the foreshore scenic protection area.

22 Clause 20 of SSLEP deals with foreshore building lines, (FBL) and waterfront development, and together with the other sub-clauses of SSLEP, provides prescriptive and performance criteria that apply to the application. Under cl 20(2)(c) if the allotment adjoins a waterfront reserve as here, the FBL is the line across the allotment parallel to and 7.5m from the landward boundary of the waterfront reserve.

23 Clause 30 of SSLEP sets out eight (8) overarching environmental and amenity protection criteria that Mr Vickas for the council, said must be "adequately addressed" by documentation submitted with the development application. Mr George for the applicant, maintained that these do not have the significance placed on them by Mr Vickas.

24 Clause 34 of SSLEP limits height of development to 7.2m to the uppermost ceiling, 9m to the highest point of the roof and if the top of any basement exceeds 1.5m above ground level, the basement will be counted as a floor. Ground level for calculating height is the ground surface of the site as it was prior to any cutting, filling or grading of the site. This was referred to as the ‘Captain Cook ground level’.

25 Clause 35 of SSLEP sets the floor space ratio, (FSR), objectives and the maximum FSR of 0.4:1.

26 Clause 36 of SSLEP sets the minimum landscaped area of 50% of the site area.

      Sutherland Shire Draft Local Environmental Plan 2003 or ‘The People's Plan’ , (draft SSLEP2003)

27 The SSLEP2003 has been placed on public exhibition, submissions have been considered by the council and an amended draft SSLEP2003 is with DIPNR awaiting a s65 certificate. The parties agreed that this draft is not ‘imminent’ and I have given it little weight in determining this matter.

      Sutherland Shire Council's Development Control Plan No 9.02/ 02 - Dwelling Houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell, (DCP)

28 The DCP contains performance criteria and prescriptive guidelines relevant to the consideration of the proposal including:

29 Under clause 7-Site Analysis of the DCP applicants are required to include in development applications a site analysis that "...establishes the development context by showing graphically the constraints and opportunities on the site in relation to natural elements and existing buildings in the immediate surroundings". The purpose of this is that the site analysis should "...influence the design and minimise negative impacts on the amenity of adjoining developments and to complement neighbourhood character".

30 The objectives of the DCP are found in cl 9 and stress environmental compatibility in terms of the public realm ‘fit’, amenity of nearby neighbours and a need to achieve a high quality of development.

31 Clause 10 of the DCP contains specific performance-based controls relating to dwelling houses. These include: (i) Objectives; (ii) Floor space ratio and Landscaping; (iii) Height; (iv) Setbacks; (v) Decks, verandahs and balconies; (vi) Foreshore Building Lines; and (vi) Energy efficiency.

32 Clause 11 of the DCP relates to car parking and access.


      The proposal and its history

33 Development application No 03/0310 was lodged with the respondent council on 5 March 2003 to demolish an existing dwelling and swimming pool and to erect a two-storey dwelling house with basement and new swimming pool on the land.

34 The proposal is described in plans prepared by Wayne Bentley Residential and Commercial Building Designers. The existing access driveway is to be retained for access to the new building.

35 The plans were amended prior to the hearing and those in Exhibit N are relied upon:

Issue Dated
Drawing 1 H 1/04
Drawing 2 F 1/04
Drawing 3 G 1/04
Drawing 4 K 9/03
Drawing D1 A 10/03
Drawing 5 (shadows) E 11/03
Drawing SK1 A 5/02

36 Prior to the hearing the basement was reduced in area and ceiling heights were changed to address issues of floor space ratio, (FSR), the pool was relocated, and the roof parapet removed.

37 The parties agreed the proposal would comply with landscaped area being 51.7% of the site area.

38 The proposal exceeds the wall height standard of SSLEP by around 950mm, and the maximum height by 40mm above the existing ground levels. If filling on the land had raised the ground line, the height standard would be breached to a greater extent.

39 Mr Vickas for the council calculated that the gross floor area (GFA) of the proposal is 1,287m2 or a FSR of 0.52:1. The applicant maintained that the extent of the breach of the GFA was less.

40 State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 objections were filed to address these breaches.


      Notification

41 The application was notified to nearby owners and occupants and the council received eight submissions:

      1. A submission from the adjoining property owners to the west at No 66 Glaisher Parade expressing objections on a substantial number of grounds, including:
        (i) breach of zone objectives;
        (ii) excessive floor space ratio, excessive bulk and scale;
        (iii) inadequate landscaping;
        (iv) detrimental impacts on the adjoining public domain (Salmon Haul Reserve); and
        (v) absence of required SEPP1 objection/s.
      2. A submission from the owners of No 68 Glaisher Parade expressing objections on the grounds of adverse impact on views.
      3. A submission from the adjoining property owners to the east at No 58 Glaisher Parade expressing objections on the grounds of:
        (i) detrimental visual privacy impacts;
        (ii) detrimental overshadowing impacts;
        (iii) excessive bulk and scale;
        (iv) inadequate character compatibility; and
        (v) loss of views.
      4. A submission from the property owners of No 56 Glaisher Parade expressing objections on the grounds of:
        (i) detrimental visual privacy impacts;
        (ii) detrimental overshadowing impacts; and
        (iii) potential for commercial operations due to excessive size of development.
      5. Four separate submissions from owners of properties directly opposite the subject property at Nos 29, 31, 33 and 35 Glaisher Parade expressing objections on grounds of:
        (i) detrimental visual impacts;
        (ii) loss of views;
        (iii) detrimental air-borne pollution due to excessive number of chimneys;
        (iv) out of character;
        (v) excessive FSR and inadequate landscaping;
        (vi) contrary to council objectives.

42 Following notification of the amended plans currently before the Court, the council received further statements from previous objectors:

      1. A further, two-part statement from the adjoining property owner to the west at No 66 Glaisher Parade maintaining objections on grounds of:
        (i) breach of zone objectives;
        (ii) excessive floor space ratio;
        (iii) excessive bulk and scale;
        (iv) inadequate landscaping;
        (v) detrimental impacts on the adjoining public domain (Salmon Haul Reserve);
        (vi) absence of required SEPP 1 objection/s;
        (vii) privacy impact;
        (viii) loss of views; and
        (ix) physical overbearing.
    2. Four supplementary submissions from owners of properties directly opposite the subject property at Nos 29, 31, 33 and 35 Glaisher Parade maintaining objections on grounds of:
        (i) detrimental visual impacts;
        (ii) loss of views;
        (iii) detrimental air-borne pollution due to excessive number of chimneys;
        (iv) out of character;
        (v) excessive FSR and
        (vi) inadequate landscaping;
        (vii) contrary to council objectives;
    The council’s decision

43 When the appeal was filed the council had not determined the application.


    The hearing

44 The appeal was filed on 20 May 2003 and is a deemed refusal.

45 At the hearing the court heard evidence on behalf of the respondent council, from:


      • Mr G Volk, 15-year resident of No 68 Glaisher Parade, Cronulla;
      • Mr D L Nelson, 16-year resident of No 66 Glaisher Parade, Cronulla;
      • Mr J Riordan, a 50-year resident of the Sutherland Shire and long time resident of No 37 Glaisher Parade, Cronulla;
      • Ms D Zhao, 3-year resident of No 58 Glaisher Parade, Cronulla;
      • Mr G Vickas, town planner; and
      • Mrs L J Denman, 18-year resident of No 31 Glaisher Parade, Cronulla.

46 On behalf of the applicant evidence was given by:


      • Mr M George, town planner;
      • Ms R E Daniell, architect and conservation architect, [Note: Exhibit L Statement of evidence];
      • Professor J Toon, town planner;
      • Mr J Curtis, owner and applicant and managing director of a construction company.
    The issues

47 On 16 June 2003 the council filed a statement of issues.


      1. Whether there is non-compliance with the objectives contained in clauses 2(e) and 2(i) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (SSLEP) 2000, and with the objectives in clause 33 for a Residential 2(e1) zone.
      2. Whether there is non-compliance with the height limits contained in clause 34(2)(a) of SSLEP 2000 with respect to the highest point of the roof.
      3. Whether there is non -compliance with the floor space ratio objectives and requirements contained in clause35 of SSLEP 2000.
      4. Whether there is non -compliance with the landscaped area objectives and requirements contained in clause 36 of SSLEP 2000.
      5. Whether the proposed development satisfactorily addresses the matters contained in clause 30(a), (d), (e), (f) and (h) of SSLEP 2000.
      6. Whether the proposed fireplaces in the proposed dwelling require a separate approval under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 .

48 An amended statement of issues was filed on 5 September 2003 in Exhibit 9, including comprehensive particulars.


      Objectives of the Local Environmental Plan
      1. Whether the proposed development satisfies the objectives of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000 as set out at Clause 2 of the LEP, and in particular whether it satisfies sub-clauses 2(b), 2(e), 2(f) and 2(i).
      Particulars:
      The proposed development seeks to utilise three residential allotments for a single dwelling house development in a manner that exhibits serious deficiencies in terms of energy efficiency, design for climate and resource conservation. As such it exhibits inadequate ESD (Ecologically Sustainable Development) characteristics that are inconsistent with the Objectives 2(b) and 2(e) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. In addition, the visual impact on the immediate scenic foreshore of proposed development as seen from the immediate foreshore (which is considered to be an item of National cultural and heritage significance), the immediate waterways and from the opposite foreshore of Port Hacking will be highly detrimental, and therefore inconsistent with Objectives 2(f) and 2(i) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000.

      Heritage Conservation
      2. Whether the proposed development satisfies the heritage conservation provisions and objectives of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000 as set out at Clause 14 of the LEP, and in particular whether the proposed development will degrade the landscape and cultural heritage significance of the adjoining Salmon Haul Bay and Bass and Flinders Point.
      Particulars:
      The proposed development will have a highly detrimental visual impact on the cultural and heritage significance of the adjoining and nearby Bass and Flinders Point and Salmon Haul Bay, both of which are identified as items of heritage under the provisions of Clause 14 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000 and are considered to be in part or in full items of National heritage significance.

      Scenic Foreshore Protection
      3. Whether the proposed development satisfies the scenic foreshore and waterway protection provisions of Clause 20 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000.
      Particulars:
      The proposed development will have a highly detrimental visual impact on the natural features and vegetation of the immediate public foreshore area (which has outstanding landscape and cultural significance), and as such is inconsistent with Objective 20 (1)(a) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000.

      Special Considerations relating to Residential Development
      4. Whether the proposed development is consistent with the special considerations applicable in residential zones as set out in Clause 30 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000.
      Particulars:
      The proposed development will cause substantial loss of both visual and aural privacy for both adjoining properties to the east and west, and as such is inconsistent with Special Matter for Consideration 30(a) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. Secondly, the proposed development, as a result of its own features and in terms of its cumulative contribution with other comparable structures, will have an adverse impact on the quality of the immediate streetscape of The Esplanade, including the pedestrian access sections of this dedicated public thoroughfare, and as such the proposed development is inconsistent with Special Matters for Consideration 30(b) and 30(c) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. Furthermore, the size, bulk, height and amount of landscape of the proposed development will impact adversely on adjoining properties, and as such the proposed development is inconsistent with Special Matter for Consideration 30(d) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. Also, the proposed development, by virtue of its excessive relative scale, mass and bulk on a visually prominent site will have an adverse impact on the immediate natural and built environment, and as such the proposed development is inconsistent with Special Matter for Consideration 30(f) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. Finally, the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the visual amenity and views of and from immediate public access areas (that are considered to be of national heritage significance) and waterways, and as such the proposed development is inconsistent with Special Matter for Consideration 30(h) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000.

      Objectives of Residential 2(e1) Zone
      5. Whether the proposed development satisfies the provisions of Clause 33 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000, and specifically whether it meets the applicable objectives for residential development in the 2(e1) Residential Zone.
      Particulars:
      The application involves a relatively massive structure that is proposed to be located within a residential environment that is deemed to be an environmentally and visually sensitive locality. In this regard, the proposed development is substantially inconsistent with the scale, amenity and general character of the area and will not conserve its outstanding natural, cultural and scenic features. As such it does not achieve the Residential 2(e1) Objectives 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(e) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000.

      Height of Development
      6. Whether the proposed development satisfies the applicable maximum height of development standard set out at Clause 34 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000, and in this regard whether the subject application requires the submission of a formal objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards; in any event, whether by virtue of its height the proposed development represents over development of the site that will result in detrimental impacts on the adjoining properties and surrounding immediate locality.
      Particulars:
      The proposed development exceeds the applicable prescriptive height development standards set out at Clause 34(2)(a) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000, and also the applicable height limits set out in Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan - Dwelling houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell as invoked by Clause 34(2)(b) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. In this regard, the proposed development will have adverse impacts and as such is inconsistent with the associated underlying objectives as set at Clause 34(1)(a)-(d) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. On this basis, the objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards to vary the height standards is not supportable.

      Density of Development
      7. Whether the proposed development satisfies the applicable maximum Floor Space Ratio development standard set out at Clause 35 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000, and in this regard whether the subject application requires the submission of a formal objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards; in any event, whether the proposed development by virtue of its mass and bulk represents overdevelopment of the site that will result in detrimental impacts on the adjoining properties and surrounding immediate locality.
      Particulars:
      The proposed development exceeds the applicable prescriptive maximum floor space ratio development standard set out at Clause 35(2) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. In this regard, the proposed development will have adverse impacts and as such is inconsistent with the associated underlying objectives as set at Clause 35(1)(a)-(b) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. On this basis, the objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards, to vary the floor space ratio standard is not supportable.

      Landscaped Area
      8. Whether the proposed development satisfies the applicable minimum Landscape Area development standard set out at Clause 36 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000, and in this regard whether the subject application requires the submission of a formal objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards; in any event, whether the proposed development by virtue of its landscape area characteristics represents overdevelopment of the site that will result in detrimental impacts on the adjoining properties and surrounding immediate locality.
      Particulars:
      The proposed development does not achieve the applicable prescriptive minimum landscaped area development standard set out at Clause 36(2) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. In this regard, the proposed development will have adverse impacts and as such is inconsistent with the associated underlying objectives as set at Clause 36(1)(a)-(c) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. On this basis, the objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards to vary the landscape area standard is not supportable.

      Restriction of Development
      9. Whether the proposed development, by virtue of its location adjoining items of local and National heritage significance in combination with its visual prominence and its physical form, should be restricted in accordance with Clause 41 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000, with particular regard to maximum height, maximum density of development and minimum landscaped area requirements.
      Particulars:
      The proposed development, which is characterised by relatively massive scale, bulk, mass and visibility, adjoins public places of outstanding local, regional, State and National cultural, landscape and heritage significance. As such, the proposed development should be restricted in accordance with the provisions of Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan - Dwelling houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell in order to respect and conserve the integrity of those public places, and in particular with regard to height of development, density of development and also landscaped area and quality of landscaping.

      Site Analysis
      10. Whether the proposed development application complies with the provisions of Clause 7 of Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan - Dwelling houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell ("The DCP"), and specifically whether the submitted site analysis is adequate to provide a reasonable basis for identifying relevant contextual factors that should be addressed by the proposed development.
      Particulars:
      The proposed development does not include a complete site analysis submission that "establishes the development context by showing graphically the constraints and opportunities on the site in relation to natural elements and existing buildings in the immediate surroundings". Also, the submitted site analysis document does not "influence the design and minimise negative impacts on the amenity of adjoining developments and to complement neighbourhood character".

      Objectives of the DCP
      11. Whether the proposed development satisfies the applicable residential development objectives as set in Clause 9 of Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan - Dwelling houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell ("The DCP").
      Particulars:
      The proposed development does not minimise the visual disturbance of the immediate aquatic environment and natural landscape, and as such is inconsistent with Residential 2(e) Objective 1 of Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan - Dwelling houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell. Furthermore, the proposed development is not adequately integrated into the site and natural surroundings, and as such is inconsistent with Residential 2(e) Objectives 2 and 4 of Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan - Dwelling houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell. Also, the proposed development does not minimise the obstruction of water views or minimise the impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, and as such is inconsistent with Residential 2(e) Objective 5 of Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan - Dwelling houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell. Finally, the proposed development does not represent a reasonable balance of rights and responsibilities between the right of the applicant to achieve personal development objectives and the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the regionally significant natural foreshores and waterways that adjacent to the subject development site. As such, the proposed development is inconsistent with Residential 2(e) Objective 6 of Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan - Dwelling houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell.

      Specific DCP Provisions
      12. Whether the proposed development satisfies a number of applicable provisions of Clause 10 - Design and Siting of Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan - Dwelling houses in 2(e) residential zones and Kurnell ("The DCP"), and specifically:
        (i) Sub-clause 10.1 -Objectives;
        (ii) Sub-clause 10.2 - Floorspace Ratio and Landscaping;
        (iii) Sub-clause 10.3 - Height;
        (iv) Sub-clause 10.5 - Setbacks;
        (v) Sub-clause 10.6 - Decks, Verandahs and Balconies; and
        (vi) Sub-clause 10.8 - Energy Efficiency.


      Particulars:
      The proposed development is not designed to minimise the impact on the landform and the adjacent the adjacent waterway. Further, the proposed development does not blend into the natural surroundings, does not have regard to preserving existing views, and does not have adequate regard to the impact on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties. As such, the proposed development does not satisfy the Design and Siting objectives of the DCP.

      The floor space ratio and landscaped area characteristics of the proposed development are inconsistent with both the applicable prescriptive controls and underlying objectives of the DCP. In this regard, irrespective of the numerical floor space ratio and landscaped area characteristics of the proposed development, it does not "avoid overdevelopment by controlling the area of the site occupied by dwellings", does not reasonably "limit the bulk of the dwelling" and does not ensure that the proposed dwelling is "in scale with the size and shape of their allotment and the character of the surrounding development".

      The height characteristics of the proposed development, in conjunction with its bulk, massing, relative scale and public visibility, will result in adverse impacts on the visual integrity of the immediate foreshores and waterways, and as such does not achieve the height objectives of the DCP to a reasonable degree.

      The building and site works setbacks from side boundaries, and specifically the eastern side boundary are inadequate to provide reasonable visual privacy protection for the adjoining properties.

      The inclusion of numerous and large first floor balconies that are with the provisions of the DCP will result in unreasonable detrimental aural privacy impacts for adjoining properties.

      The proposed development does not exhibit adequate energy efficiency characteristics consistent with the applicable energy efficiency objectives and associated controls of the DCP.

      Car Parking and Access
      13. Whether the proposed development complies with the car parking egress provisions of Clause 11 of Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan-Dwelling Houses in 2(e) Residential Zones and Kurnell ("The DCP"), and in particular with regard to potential detrimental impacts on adjoining properties.
      Particulars:
      The location of the vehicular access driveway and basement vehicular entrance will cause significant detrimental aural privacy impacts on the adjoining properties to the east. As such, the proposed development is inconsistent with Car Parking and Access Objective 2 of the DCP.

      Urban Bushland
      14. Whether the proposed development complies with the applicable provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 - Urban Bushland.
      Particulars:
      The application involves the proposed erection of a visually development adjoining an area of urban foreshore bushland that h local and regional landscape and cultural significance. T development will have a significant detrimental visual impact on t that adjoining urban foreshore bushland, and as such is inconsistent with the Aims and Objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 Bushland, and is also inconsistent with the applicable specific Clause 9 of the Policy.

      Public Interest
      15. Whether the proposed development is in the public interest.
      Particulars:
      The proposed development includes the erection of a relatively visually dominant structure that will have major detrimental impacts massive and on the visual integrity of the adjoining foreshore that has local, regional and National cultural and heritage significance, as well as the scenic qualities of the immediate waterways and nearby opposite foreshores of Port Hacking. In this regard, the proposed development is contrary to the public interest.

      Objections
      16. Matters raised by objectors.
      Particulars:
      Outlined in the objectors’ letters, a copy of which can be provided upon request.

49 The following emerged as the salient issues:

      • Heritage conservation;
      • Scenic foreshore protection;
      • Height of development;
      • Density of development;
      • Site analysis;
      • Urban bushland;
      • Public interest; and objections.
    The evidence and findings
    Heritage conservation

50 The proposal would extend forward of Zhao /Hoff property at No 58 Glaisher Parade by 6.8m to the bay window or 4.8m to the main wall. The proposal would also project further forward than the existing building for its 36m-length and two-storey height and project further forward than the defacto southern building line of buildings nearby.

51 As was seen on the site inspection by reference to the height poles erected on the land, when walking through the Salmon Haul Reserve, the proposal would be visible in places where the existing dwelling is not. The height poles that marked the height and location of the corners of the proposal could be seen from viewpoints within the reserve through and over the top of the fringing vegetation in the reserve.

52 I accept that the proposal would comply with the rear setback line under cl 20(2)(c) of the SSLEP of 7.5m, however, special considerations apply to this land as a result of the heritage significance of the reserve.

53 The success of the visual experience of the reserve is dependent on the landscaping dominating over the man-made. The proposal would be seen from many viewpoints in the reserve and would make its presence felt from those viewpoints.

54 The evidence of Ms Daniell, on reflection, was that part of the visual experience of the reserve is gained by the view out to the waters and landform of Port Hacking, and she considered the proposal acceptable. In earlier evidence she indicated that the extended curtilage might take in southern parts of the land near the eastern and western ends, partly in an area proposed for the swimming pool. She later gave evidence that the ‘extended curtilage’ of the reserve would be the landward boundary of the reserve.

55 I prefer the evidence of Mr Vickas that, [Note: Exhibit 7 p22]:


      The proposed development will have a highly detrimental visual impact on the cultural and heritage significance of the adjoining and nearby Bass and Flinders Point and Salmon Haul Bay, both of which are identified as items of heritage under the provisions of Clause 14 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000 and are considered to be in part or in full items of National heritage significance.

56 I am satisfied that, contrary to the evidence of Ms Daniell, that the southern section of the land contributes to the extended curtilage of the reserve, which would be reduced if the proposal were to project further to the south than the existing building. The proposal would present as a full storey greater in height than the existing. Also the basement level would project up to 1.7m above the ground level and this would also contribute to the proposal’s bulk and appearance of greater than two storeys. From most viewpoints within the reserve, because of its slope, the roof of the existing building would not be visible and would not contribute to its appearance of bulk.

57 From the evidence, I am satisfied that the proposal would unreasonably impose on the heritage listed reserve, to an extent that warrants refusal of the application.

      Scenic foreshore protection

58 Issue 3 is whether the proposed development satisfies the scenic foreshore and waterway protection provisions of cll 19 and 20 of SSLEP. The council through the evidence of Mr Vickas contends that:

        The proposed development will have a highly detrimental visual impact on the natural features and vegetation of the immediate public foreshore area (which has outstanding landscape and cultural significance), and as such is inconsistent with Objective 20(1)(a) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000.

59 Despite the land being fringed by vegetation growing within the Salmon Haul Reserve, I am satisfied that the proposal would appear more prominent than the existing building on the land, when viewed from Port Hacking.

60 I accept the evidence of Ms Daniell that the existing roof, because of its slope, does reflect sunlight when viewed from various points on Port Hacking, and this contributes to the apparent bulk of the existing building.

61 Despite the fact that the proposed roof would be at a lower pitch, not as visible as the existing and the proposed first floor walls would for the most part be in shade, I have concluded based on the evidence of Mr Vickas that the proposal would appear as a prominent element in the landscape when viewed from Port Hacking. As a result I am satisfied that it would be inconsistent with Objective 20(1)(a) of SSLEP. A building that more closely conformed to the height and density standards of that required by the planning instrument might better meet the scenic foreshore objectives and allow development to better fit in with the surroundings.

62 Ms Sonter had prepared a landscape concept plan that provided for trees to the south at the third points of the southern elevation, in an attempt to visually break up the 36m long façade. Mr Vickas was of the opinion that even if the trees were to mature the continuous façade would remain from viewpoints on Port Hacking and fail to ameliorate the impact of the bulk of the building.

63 I accept Mr Vickas’ evidence consider the application fails in this regard.


      Height of development

64 The wall height of the proposal exceeds the 7.2m height standard under SSLEP by around 950mm at the western wing and around 800mm for the central part of the proposal. Also parts of the roof ridge would exceed the maximum height of 9m by around 40mm as calculated by the applicant. An SEPP1 objection, in Exhibit T, to the height standard was filed.

65 I do not accept the submission of Mr Leggat that the extent of the breach is de minimus and not needing of further attention. The applicant’s proposal, late in the hearing, to reduce the height of the western wing by 900mm would still leave the main part of the house in breach by around 800mm.

66 The proposal exceeds the height in storeys measurement as it protrudes more than 1.5m above the existing ground level, and would be technically three storeys in height. The breach in height would be greater if taken above the ground surface of the site prior to any cutting, filling or grading.

67 The underlying purpose of the standard is as set out in cl 34(1) of the SSLEP:


      (a) achieve a consistency in the scale of buildings within each zone, and
      (b) minimise adverse impacts from development on adjoining or nearby properties due to loss of privacy and views, and overshadowing, and
      (c) relate the building form to the topography of the site, and
      (d) ensure all buildings in a residential zone, other than the 2(c) Residential zone, maintain a maximum two-storey appearance .

68 I accept the evidence of Mr Vickas in this regard that:


        ...the proposed development will have adverse impacts and as such is inconsistent with the associated underlying objectives as set at Clause 34(1)(a)-(d) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2000. On this basis, the objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards to vary the height standards is not supportable.

69 I consider the proposal would not meet objective (b) to minimise adverse impacts due to loss of privacy and views, and overshadowing. The evidence suggests that the proposal would adversely impact on the views towards Port Hacking and Jibbon Beach from the first floor balcony of No 66 Glaisher Parade, the dwelling of Mr Newton. Privacy impacts would be exacerbated by the windows in the western wing facing towards the living areas of No 66 Glaisher Parade. The proposal would also adversely impact on the views towards Hungry Point near Salmon Haul Bay Beach from the Zhao/ Hoff dwelling especially those views through the archway at the end of the first floor balcony. There would be some additional overshadowing of the rear garden of the Zhao/ Hoff dwelling as a result of the proposal’s forward projection and as a result of the proposal being two or more storeys in height.

70 I am satisfied that it would not meet objective (c) as the building form of the proposal would not relate well to the topography of the site. The land is sloping and terraced and the proposal is for a large building standing proud of the land.

71 I am satisfied that objective (d) would not be met as the proposal would slightly exceed a maximum two-storey appearance above the existing ground level at the western end of the southern elevation. Although the floor level of the proposal is similar to that of the existing, as the proposal extends further to the south than the existing it would appear higher.

72 I am also satisfied that the proposal would not meet objective (a) and would not achieve "a consistency in the scale of buildings within each zone". The existing single-storey building could be seen as consistent with the scale of buildings nearby and in the zone. The proposal being slightly in excess of two storeys in height and sited towards the reserve, would be imposing in scale.

73 I have considered the SEPP1 objection to the 7.2m height standard of the SSLEP in the light of the decision of his Honour Justice Lloyd in Winten Property Group Limited -v- North Sydney Council, NSWLEC 46, 6 April 2001 paras 22 - 26. His Honour at para 26 stated that in applying the principles of Hooker Corporation Pty Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (NSWLEC, 2 June 1986, unreported):


        ...it seems to me that SEPP1 requires answers to a number of questions (not necessarily in the following order). First, is the planning control in question a development standard? Second, what is the underlying object or purpose of the standard? Third, is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular does compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act? Fourth, is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case? Fifth, is the objection well founded? In relation to the fourth question, it seems to me that one must look to see whether a development, which complies, with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as noted by Cripps J in the Hooker Corporation case.

74 Taking each question posed by his Honour Lloyd J and answering it.


      • The height standard is a development standard as defined under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;
      • The underlying purpose set out above in para 67 would not be met. In particular the proposal would exceed the height standard in places where it would block views from neighbouring properties and impose to the greatest extent on the Salmon Haul Reserve;
      • Compliance would tend to hinder the aims and objectives of s 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In particular, the proposal would not meet the aim of orderly development of land. I am satisfied that there would be complying designs that would achieve the applicant’s ends without the adverse consequences of this particular application;
      • Compliance is not unnecessary or unreasonable in the circumstances of the case; and
      • The objection is not well founded.

75 There was no persuasive evidence that the proposal could not be designed to comply with the height standard. I am thus satisfied that strict compliance with the height standard is not unnecessary or unreasonable or in the circumstances of the case and as a result the SEPP1 objection is not well founded and the application fails.


      Density of development

76 At the conclusion of the hearing the town planners still disagreed as to the extent of the breach of the FSR, [Note: Exhibit 16 p 2/5 of the joint statement]. Mr George contended that the GFA of the proposed development is 1,057.1m2 with a FSR of 0.43:1, (or otherwise an excess of 63.54 m2). Mr Vickas contended that the GFA of the proposed development is 1,237.37m2 or a FSR of 0.50:1, (or otherwise an excess of 243.81m2). The difference in measured GFA of 180.27 m2 is substantially explained by the continued position of Mr Vickas that the first floor void/ ‘roof space’ areas amounting to 140.39m2 should be included as GFA, while the other about 40 m2 is due to evident, but unexplained differences in measuring technique.

77 The proposal with a FSR in the range of 0.43:1 to 0.5:1, depending on the method of calculation would exceed the FSR standard under the SSLEP. A SEPP1 objection to the height standard in Exhibit S was filed. The evidence suggested that by moving the door to the garage it might be possible to slightly reduce the extent of the breach, however the proposal still would not comply. There was no evidence to suggest that the proposal could not be designed to comply with the standard. In fact every attempt was made by the applicant to ensure that the proposal did comply. The SEPP1 objection states:


      The originally submitted application was amended in consultation with Council Officers to ensure it complied with the FSR standard by:
      • omitting areas of basement and identifying areas exempt from FSR calculations under the definition. This resulted in the basement having a gross floor area, as agreed with Council officers of 59.4m2.
      • Inserting a ceiling into the originally proposed 6m high void spaces to address the DCP height control provisions, which count a storey in excess of 4.5m as 2 storeys. Again, this amendment was the product of discussion with Council officers.

78 Despite these attempts the parties agreed that there was a breach of between 63.54m2 and 243.81m2 and the SEPP1 objection was filed.

79 The objectives of the standard as set out in Cl. 35(1) of the SSLEP are:


      (a) to provide a degree of consistency for existing residents as to the size and bulk of potential buildings in their neighbourhood, and
      (b) to allow buildings of sufficient scale to satisfy the needs of residents while preventing development of sites beyond community expectations and the environmental capacity of the zone.

80 The applicant justified a variation of the standard in the basement space for reason:


      (a) the calculation of gross floor area in the application is consistent with the definition. In particular, plant room and storage rooms are not gross floor area as defined;
      (b) the inclusion of floor space below ground level does not contribute to building bulk or scale and therefore is consistent with the objectives of the standard; and
      (c) the incorporation of parking in a basement reduces the permissible bulk of a building, and is preferable to the alternative of above ground parking structures, particularly if erected at street level.

81 To the extent that any non-compliance relates to the roof space at first floor level the applicant’s SEPP1 objection stated:


      (a) this space is not a floor in any conventional sense;
      (b) the original plan had this space as a void above the ground floor. The plans were amended on the advice of the Council Officer that building height in excess of 4.5m is considered to be two storeys (DCP Clause 10.3). However:
        • that provision relates to height control and has no relevance to floor space ratio. The building would still be two storeys;
        • a DCP cannot alter the meaning of a statutory definition. A floor is a floor, it is not an arbitrary point in the air;
        • removal of these ceilings would remove any apparent non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard at this level of the building and this course of action is proposed and recommended. The external appearance of the building would not change;
        • it would also be possible to remove any question that the roof space was capable of being used by building a roof over it (under the proposed roof). However, such a device is contrived and unnecessary;
        • in the final analysis this space does not affect the overall bulk and scale of the building however it is addressed. The overall dimensions and appearance of the proposal are unchanged.
      The building otherwise substantially satisfies the building height control. This is consistent with the objective of the standard to regulate the size of the building.

82 Applying the tests set by his Honour Lloyd J:


      • The height of dwellings in the 2(e1) zone is subject to a development standard;
      • The underlying purpose set out above in para 79 is not met. In particular the scale of the proposal “…does not satisfy the needs of residents while preventing development of sites beyond community expectations and the environmental capacity of the zone” as sought by objective (b). As the applicant stated in the SEPP1 objection 'community expectations' are reflected in the SSLEP controls. Those expectations would not be met by a proposal that does not comply with the density standard.
      • Compliance would tend to hinder the aims and objectives of s 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In particular the proposal which exceeds the standard would not result in orderly development of land;
      • Compliance is not unnecessary or unreasonable in the circumstances of the case; and
      • The objection is not well founded.

83 Thus I am satisfied that strict compliance with the density standard is not unnecessary or unreasonable or in the circumstances of the case and as a result the SEPP1 objection is not well founded and the application fails.


      Site analysis

84 A rudimentary site analysis, based on the survey map, accompanied the application before the Court, [Note: Exhibit N]. The site analysis included insufficient analysis of the prime views to be had from Mr Nelson’s property over Port Hacking from Jibbon Beach to Bundeena and points west. His dwelling was noted simply as ‘adjoining’ and no other information was given apart from the survey information included on the base map. Similarly, the views over Hungry Point and Salmon Haul Bay from the Zhao/ Hoff dwelling were not specifically noted on the site analysis.

85 These neighbouring views are of such significance that every attempt to share those views should have been explored. The views from the proposal are graphically shown in the plans prepared by Ms Sonter. From that drawing it is possible to gauge the extent to which the views and privacy of neighbouring properties would be reduced.

86 The site analysis is an important tool that enables the draftsperson to set design parameters for the proposal. There was no site analysis that "...establishes the development context by showing graphically the constraints and opportunities on the site in relation to natural elements and existing buildings in the immediate surroundings". Also, the submitted site analysis document does not "...influence the design and minimise negative impacts on the amenity of adjoining developments and to complement neighbourhood character". As a result, I am satisfied that the application was manifestly deficient and fundamentally flawed.


      Urban bushland

87 It was agreed that Salmon Bay Reserve is to be considered under SEPP19 as urban bushland. Mr Vickas stated [Note: Exhibit 7 p 29]:


        The application involves the proposed erection of a visually dominant development adjoining an area of urban foreshore bushland that has recognised local and regional landscape and cultural significance. The proposed development will have a significant detrimental visual impact on the integrity of that adjoining urban foreshore bushland, and as such is inconsistent with the Aims and Objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 - Urban Bushland, and is also inconsistent with the applicable specific provisions of Clause 9 of the Policy.

88 Ms Daniell considered that proposal would not significantly impact on the reserve and that the extended curtilage of the reserve would extend only as far as the landward common boundary of the reserve. She was of the opinion that persons within the reserve would not be intent on looking towards the land but out to the waters of Port Hacking. It is true that the view out is very important, however; on the site inspection I noted that the eye was drawn to the inappropriate development on the landward side as well. Fortunately, the land is fringed by vegetation within the reserve that would ameliorate some of the impacts of development. Despite this, I am satisfied on the evidence of Mr Vickas, that the proposal would impose itself unnecessarily on the reserve to its detriment.


      Public interest and objections to the proposal

89 On the site inspection on 22 January 2004 the Court heard from some of the resident objectors:

90 When standing on the existing driveway on the land, Mr Volk, resident of No 68 Glaisher Parade, Cronulla, stated that he would like to see the proposed building brought back 6m towards the street. This he intimated would avoid many of the adverse impacts of the proposal and reduce view loss for adjoining owners.

91 When standing on the upper front balcony of No 66 Glaisher Parade, Mr Nelson, resident of that property, stated that he and his family live mostly on this balcony, family room and around the pool down stairs, and the proposal would have a detrimental impact on his views to the south east.

92 Mr Nelson referred to a photomontage of the expected view from his balcony, and indicated that the true impact of the proposed development was not accurately depicted. He said that the proposed development would be an "in the face type result" and "it will totally destroy our lifestyle". Mr Nelson also objected to the proposed Bangalow palm extending above the ridge of the proposal, which would also interrupt views from his dwelling.

93 He referred to the development of the adjoining property to the west at No 68 Glaisher Parade and stated: "at least it is not in our face" and indicated that prior to it being built, discussions with his neighbour had resulted in his neighbour agreeing "curve the veranda" so that there would be no loss of view.

94 While standing on the lower front balcony of No 66 Glaisher Parade, Mr Nelson who has been living at this house for 15 years, stated:


      • The impact on his pool area will be substantial;
      • His pool didn’t exist when he moved in and he and his neighbour put their pools in at about the same time;
      • The fill in his backyard had come from the excavation required for the Winkworth pool at the subject property at Nos 60-64 Glaisher Parade;
      • His lower lawn is not "true ground level" and "I believe that next door is not as well"
      • At the waters edge of that pool there is about 2m of fill.

95 The parties agreed that from a sitting position on the upper front balcony of Mr Nelson’s property at No 66 Glaisher Parade, that the main ridge of the proposal would allow a view of an area of land somewhere between the water at Jibbon Beach and the top of the Jibbon Beach hillside.

96 Mr Riordan, a 50-year resident of the Sutherland Shire and long time resident of No 37 Glaisher Parade, stated that he was under the impression that the council had made a decision on the proposed development. Mr Leggat for the applicant explained that the appeal had been filed on the basis of a deemed refusal. Mr Riordan requested that the "considerations of the council be given weight by the Court". He indicated that he supported the council’s position, even though he hasn’t objected to date.

97 Ms Zhao, a 3-year resident of No 58 Glaisher Parade, stated while standing on the southern upper balcony off her main bedroom she:


      • had formally objected to the application;
      • was concerned at the loss of view to the south west;
      • liked to look at the view in the morning;
      • considered that it is quite noisy at present, "with parties going on every weekend" and that there would be noise from cars using the driveway to the basement car park;
      • is able to stand in the main bedroom and see to Hungry Point at Salmon Haul Bay through the arch in the western wall of the balcony; and
      • was concerned that the planting of Banksias on the common boundary would cause her to lose her view.

98 While standing on the lower southern balcony of No 58 Glaisher Parade, Ms Zhao said she was concerned that the proposal would block out sun to her lower lawn.

99 Whilst on the boat she stated that an additional concern would be the noise from the proposed swimming pool.

100 She agreed that if the proposal were to more closely respect the de-facto southern building line shading of Ms Zhao’s property to the southeast to Hungry Point would be reduced.

101 The parties were in substantial agreement that any consent could be conditioned to require the provision of a roof over the driveway ramp to ameliorate noise impacts of vehicles using the ramp.

102 The concerns expressed by the residents centred on the two-storey height of the proposal, and the fact that the proposal would extend forward of the de-facto southern building line of properties fronting Salmon Haul Reserve, and would block views of Jibbon Beach on the southern side of Port Hacking and parts of the beach at Salmon Haul Bay. The impact on views is sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application for this reason alone.

103 For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.


    Orders

104 My orders are:

          1. The appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is dismissed.
          2. The State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 objection to the height standard of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2000 (SSLEP) is not well founded.
          3. The State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 objection to the density standard of SSLEP is not well founded.
          4. Development application No 03/0310 lodged with the respondent council on 5 March 2003 to demolish the existing dwelling and swimming pool on the land and to erect a two-storey dwelling house with basement and new swimming pool at Lot B in DP 349247 and Lots 11 & 12 in DP 10823, being Nos 60-64 Glaisher Parade, Cronulla, is refused consent.
          5. The exhibits with the exception of Exhibits N, O, P and 9 are returned.
      S J Watts
      Commissioner of the Court
      sw
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

5