Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Marika King v Woollahra Council [2006] NSWLEC 654 PARTIES: APPLICANT:
Marika King
RESPONDENT:
Woollahra CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 10624 of 2006 CORAM: Watts C at 1 KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Enclosure of balcony to attenuate noise and reduce pollution;
urban design;
integrity of the existing building design;
building articulation and private open space; and
negative streetscape impact.LEGISLATION CITED: Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995, (WLEP)
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design of Residential Flat Buildings, (SEPP65)
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, (SREPSH)
Rose Bay Centre Development Control Plan, (RBCDCP)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss79C and 97DATES OF HEARING: 12/10/2006 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 10/12/2006 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT:
Mr M E McMahon, solicitor
SOLICITORS:
Mr M E McMahon & AssociatesRESPONDENT:
Mr P R Rigg, solicitor
SOLICITORS
:Deacons
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Watts C
12 October 2006
10624 of 2006 – Marika King v Woollahra Council
JUDGMENT
1 This is an appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the decision of the Woollahra Council (the council) to refuse a development application to enclose a balcony at Lot 14 in SP 52896, ‘The Mariner’, being Lot No 14 at Nos 809 – 823 New South Head Road, Rose Bay.
2 An on-site hearing was held on 12 October 2006 and I inspected the balcony that is to be enclosed in company with the parties.
3 I am satisfied that acoustic attenuation might be achieved by double or secondary glazing of the windows facing onto the balcony rather than enclosing the balcony. I am satisfied that the public interest is best served by maintaining the architectural integrity of the building and the streetscape by leaving the balcony unenclosed.
‘The Mariner’
4 ‘The Mariner’ is a four-storey mixed-use development with retail on the ground floor and residential units above situated on the corner of Dover and New South Head Roads in the commercial area of Rose Bay. There is already one enclosed balcony at Unit No 7, that was approved by the Court and the applicant seeks to enclose another, at Unit 14.
5 ‘The Mariner’ is within the ‘Core Area’ of the Rose Bay Commercial Centre that is characterised by a mix of residential, commercial and retail buildings of varying height and design.
Relevant planning controls
Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995, (WLEP)
6 Under the provisions of the WLEP the land is zoned General Business 3(a) and the proposal is permissible with consent.
7 Clauses of the WLEP of relevance include cll 2(2)(k)(i-iii) - urban design; 11 – floor space ratio; 19 – Harbour Foreshore Scenic Protection Area; and 27 – Development in the vicinity of heritage items.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design of Residential Flat Buildings, (SEPP65)
8 Under SEPP65 a ‘residential flat building’ is defined as being a building:
(a) 3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Marika King v Woollahra Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] NSWLEC 654
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the compliance of the proposed balcony enclosure with the applicable planning scheme and any relevant development control guidelines. The applicant argued that the proposed changes would not adversely affect the character of the area, while the council contended that the alterations would result in a significant change in the appearance of the property, contrary to local planning policies. The court considered the merits of the arguments and the weight of the evidence before it.
In its decision, the court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was based on substantial evidence and was in accordance with the relevant planning policies. The court concluded that the proposed balcony enclosure would result in a significant change to the appearance of the property, which was inconsistent with the character of the area. As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the council's decision to refuse the development application. The exhibits submitted to the court, excluding certain specified documents, were ordered to be returned to the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is dismissed. 2. Development application No 595/2005/1 lodged with the respondent council on 27 September 2005 to enclose the balcony to Unit 14 at Lot 14 in SP 52896, `The Mariner' being Lot No 14 at Nos 809 - 823 New South Head Road, Rose Bay, is refused consent. 3. The exhibits except for Exhibits A, 5, 6 and 7 are returned.
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.