Lufi v Woollahra Municipal Council

[2008] NSWLEC 1151

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Lufi v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 1151

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Pietro Lufi

RESPONDENT
Woollahra Municipal Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10975 of 2007

CORAM:

Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- Alterations and additions to an existing house, side and rear setbacks, privacy and solar access for neighbours, the location and design of the carport, streetscape, character, stormwater drainage including overland flows from uphill, street tree and on-site tree protection, sufficient deep soil for landscape vegetation.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy Building Sustainability Index Basics 2004
State Environmental Planning Policy Number 55 Remediation of Land
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan
Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005
Woollahra Development Contributions Plan 2005
Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995
Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003
Woollahra Access Development Control Plan
Council’s Advertising and Notifications Development Control Plan

DATES OF HEARING:

11/03/2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

11 March 2008

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr S. McDougall, solicitor
of Bray Jackson & Co

RESPONDENT
Ms E. Adams, solicitor
of Home Wilkinson Lowry

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

11 March 2008

10975 of 2007 Pietro Lufi v Woollahra Municipal Council

JUDGMENT

1 This is a Class 1 Appeal No. 10975 of 2007 between Pietro Lufi and Woollahra Municipal Council in regard to the refusal of a proposed major alterations and additions to an existing house at No. 27 Glendon Road, Double Bay.

2 The subject drawings of the 2-storey house were agreed by the parties to be dealt with under a s 34 conference to resolve the dispute and that was held on site on 11 January 2008. Attending that conference for the applicant was Mr S McDougall, solicitor for the applicant, Mr L Michalska, Mr P Lufi, the architect and applicant and the owners of the property who are Mr and Mrs Michalska. Attending was Ms E Adams, solicitor for the respondent, and Mr J La Posta, Senior Assessment Officer for the council.

3 At the end of that day, the applicant advised it was prepared to consider amended plans and certain matters were discussed during the conference which need not be listed here. Directions were given for those drawings to be produced by 18 January 2008 and the respondent to consider the plans as necessary and re-exhibit for public comment if required under the council’s controls and for the s 34 conference to resume on 7 February.

4 In preparing the amended plans which now come to the Court in Exhibit A, being Version F, there are a considerable number of changes which the council now says has eliminated the issues and contentions that it had originally put. The proposal had been re-notified and there were no objectors to the proposal. Draft conditions have been prepared and the parties have agreed on consent orders as set out in Exhibit 2. The time required for the parties to complete the process meant the conference returned on 11 March 2008.

5 Since there are no issues now outstanding between the parties and the relevant matters under, the State Environmental Planning Policy Building Sustainability Index Basics 2004, the State Environmental Planning Policy Number 55 Remediation of Land, Sydney Regional Environmental Plan, Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005, the Woollahra Section 94 and 94A Development Contributions Plan 2005, the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995 for the Residential 2(b) Zone, the Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003, the Woollahra Access Development Control Plan and Council’s Advertising and Notifications Development Control Plan have now all been dealt with satisfactorily such that any impacts have been ameliorated to a level that is acceptable.

6 There is no reason therefore to refuse the consent orders sought by the parties. The orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development Application No. 460/2007/1 for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new dwelling at 27 Glendon Road, Double Bay is approved as shown on plans No.s DA0-DA12 all Revision F and Landscape Plan Ref: A by Lufi & Associates Pty Ltd Architects and Arborist Report Ref: B by Ents Tree Consultancy all as amended by and built in accordance with the conditions contained in Annexure A.

3. The exhibits and documents are returned to the parties except Exhibits A and 2.

The Court notes each party is to pay their own costs.

___________________

K G Hoffman
Commissioner of the Court
ljr