Klaric v Mosman Municipal Council

Case [2014] NSWLEC 1156


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Klaric v Mosman Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 1156
Hearing dates:28 July 2014
Decision date: 28 July 2014
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey C
Decision:

(1)The appeal is upheld.

(2)Consent is granted to this development modification application 8.2006.21.4 in respect of consent for a dwelling house at 69 Parriwi Road, Mosman subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

(3)Exhibits may be returned except 1, 3, 4, A, B, C, E and F.

Catchwords: Development modification - Retaining walls adjacent to adjoining property
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Robert and Leonie Klaric (Applicants)

Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Mr C McEwen (Applicant)

Ms J Walsh (Respondent)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant)

Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):10158 of 2014

Judgment

  1. This appeal concerns an application under section 96(8) to modify a Court approved development for works associated with a waterfront property at 69 Parriwi Road Mosman. The site is steeply sloping from Parriwi Road to the waterfront and during the course of construction of the dwelling; approval was given to erect a large crane on adjacent council property.

  1. The modifications are as stated in the Statement of Facts and Contentions and include:

  • New retaining wall to the southern boundary;
  • New retaining wall to the western boundary;
  • Re-configuration of the structural support wall beneath the driveway entry slab;
  • Adjustment of window openings and external glazed door openings;
  • Flat roof to stairwell;
  • Dumb waiter replaced with lift;
  • Adjustment of garage slab and inclinator landing upper slab levels;
  • Blade support wall to stairs descending from inclinator upper landing level added to Drawing OA-04J (previously omitted);
  • New bin room with timber gate;
  • Deletion of access stair and reconfiguration of emergency access stair;
  • Pool steps changed.
  1. Notice of the appeal was given to the neighbours resulting in submissions covering:

  • Excessive delays in progressing the construction works
  • Adverse impact on amenity arising from site works
  • Inadequate protection of neighbouring properties as a result of excavation on the subject property
  • Inadequate compliance with the Construction Management Plan
  1. At the view, the various modification elements were explained and it is apparent that the area along the southern boundary, adjacent to the existing Koppers log fence, at 67 Parriwi Road is the main component.

  1. Submissions were made on behalf of the owners of No 67 concerning the movement of the Koppers log fence along the common boundary and possible damage to their property.

  1. However, the proposed retaining wall along this southern boundary is designed to address this issue. Insofar as the plans show the new piles being placed adjacent to the common boundary, questions regarding the satisfactory construction of this wall were answered by the applicant's consulting structural engineer, Mr M Blaszczakiewicz as follows:

(1)   No design offset from the boundary for contiguous shoring piles was allowed in the design. It is expected that nominal construction tolerances will be maintained to ensure that no encroachment into the adjoining site exists. The tolerance proposed is +50mm/-0mm, i.e. piles will be constructed up to 50mm away from the boundary to prevent the encroachment.

(2)   The contiguous shoring piles have been designed to withstand the full effect of the soil on the adjoining site, including the soil behind the existing copper log timber wall. The design includes and takes into account the soil parameters from geotechnical investigation. In this regard, the proposed shoring construction will not undermine or disturb the existing copper log wall.

(3)   The soil behind the proposed shoring wall is generally an easily draining fill and alluvial material. Therefore, no drainage behind the shoring is required. Weep holes will be maintained between shoring piles to release water pressure behind the shoring.

  1. In the absence to any challenge to this engineering evidence, I accept it on the basis that the proposed works can be undertaken in a safe manner, which protects and does not encroach/interfere with the adjoining properties.

  1. I understand the parties have agreed on all the other modification issues and in these circumstances then, I consider that the modification application should be approved on the basis of the agreed conditions.

Court Orders

(1)   The appeal is upheld.

(2)   Consent is granted to the modification of this development modification application 8.2006.21.4 in respect of consent for a dwelling house at 69 Parriwi Road, Mosman subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

(3)   Exhibits may be returned except 1, 3, 4, A, B, C, E and F.

R Hussey

Commissioner of the Court

Amendments

03 September 2014 - para 1 deleted the words 'was lodged against council's deemed refusal of a s 96 for' - added 'concerns an application under section 96(8) to modify a Court approved development for'para 4 deleted the words 'proposed Right of Way (ROW)' added the word 'area'


Amended paragraphs: 1 and 4

Details
AGLC
Klaric v Mosman Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 1156
Case
[2014] NSWLEC 1156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Klaric, the appellant, and Mosman Municipal Council, the respondent. The issue at hand was the granting of a development modification application by the Council for a dwelling house at 69 Parriwi Road, Mosman. The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining the appeal against the Council's refusal to grant the modification application. The appellant argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that there were valid grounds for modifying the development consent. The Council, on the other hand, contended that the modification was not in line with the approved development consent and would result in detrimental impacts on the area.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the refusal of the development modification application was unreasonable. The court examined the principles of administrative law and the relevant legislation governing development consents. It considered the scope of the original consent, the extent of the modification, and whether the modification was consistent with the approved development consent. The court also assessed the evidence presented by both parties and the impact of the proposed modification on the surrounding environment and community. The court had to balance the appellant's right to develop their property against the need to protect the interests of the community and the environment.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the refusal of the development modification application was unreasonable. The court held that the proposed modification was consistent with the approved development consent and did not result in any detrimental impacts on the area. The court also found that the appellant had demonstrated a valid reason for seeking the modification and that the modification was in the best interest of the community. As a result, the appeal was upheld, and consent was granted to the development modification application. The exhibits were ordered to be returned, except for those specified in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1)The appeal is upheld.

(2)Consent is granted to this development modification application 8.2006.21.4 in respect of consent for a dwelling house at 69 Parriwi Road, Mosman subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

(3)Exhibits may be returned except 1, 3, 4, A, B, C, E and F.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.