Jang v Hunters Hill Municipal Council

[2006] NSWLEC 509

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Jang v Hunters Hill Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 509

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Hwan Kwon Jang

RESPONDENT
Hunters Hill Municipal Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10011 of 2006

CORAM:

Hussey C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- Retaining walls and associated works, adequacy of plans, geotechnical considerations, public interest

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1

DATES OF HEARING:

15/08/2006

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

08/17/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr R Creighton, agent

RESPONDENT
Mr J Cole, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Abbott Tout

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

17 August 2006

10011 of 2006 Hwan Kwon Jang v Hunters Hill Municipal Council

JUDGMENT

Background

1 This appeal was lodged against council’s refusal of a development application proposing the construction of retaining walls, associated land terracing and drainage at 20 Mount Street, Hunters Hill.

2 Prior to the hearing, Case Management was undertaken, which resulted in Directions being made regarding the extent of detailing and specification for the proposal. This included requirements for the applicant to provide complete details of the existing site conditions and levels, full details of the proposed retaining walls and ancillary works, including adequate sections and elevations.

The evidence

3 At the hearing, Mr Creighton tendered the final plans and details to be relied on and these became Exhibit B. The applicant also relied on the planning report of Mr J Boers (Exhibit C).

4 The council relied on the evidence of Mr R Sherry, council’s environmental health and building surveyor (Exhibit 1).

5 Following consideration of this evidence, and observations at the site inspection, I do not consider the level of detailing and specification is adequate to enable proper assessment of the proposal because:

• the plans do not accurately show the existing site conditions (e.g. existing trees and vegetation) or levels,
• the plans do not accurately show the position of the existing retaining wall, which apparently is to be retained,
• the provision of the typical cross-section generally depicting 600 mm high retaining walls is inaccurate and unresponsive to the existing topographical conditions,
• it is obvious that for the assessment of satisfactory visual/amenity impacts that the retaining walls are likely to be considerably higher in sections than that the depicted 600 mm walls show, but no elevations have been provided to allow adequate assessment,
• no geotechnical details have been submitted to reasonably confirm the ability to safely construct the retaining walls on the subject property, without disturbing the adjoining property,
• inadequate details of the interception agricultural drainage behind the retaining walls and their relationship with the nearby stormwater absorption pit and their discharge arrangements have been provided.

  
  Conclusions

6 In view of the aforementioned inadequacies in the detailing of the proposal, I accept Mr Cole’s submission that the lack of this essential information, which was identified in the Court's Directions at Case Management, results in the refusal of this development application.

Court orders
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Development application No. 05/1105 for the construction of retaining walls and associated works at 20 Mount Street, Hunters Hill, is refused.

___________________

R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
rjs