Navaroo Constructions Pty Ltd v Palerang Council

[2006] NSWLEC 405

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Stott v Ku-ring-gai Council [2006] NSWLEC 405

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Geoffrey Stott

RESPONDENT
Ku-ring-gai Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10542 of 2006

CORAM:

Hussey C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- Construction of a free-standing double carport, setback, landscaping, tree vegetation, character of the area

DATES OF HEARING:

16/10/2006

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

10/16/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr G Stott, self represented

RESPONDENT
Ms J. Studdert, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Deacons Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

16 October 2006

10542 of 2006 Geoffrey Stott v Ku-ring-gai Council

JUDGMENT

This decision was given extemporaneously. It
has been revised and edited prior to publication.

1 The appeal was lodged against council’s refusal of a development application for the construction of free-standing double carport, concrete driveway together with a front fence at No. 27 Warrimoo Avenue, St Ives. The full details of the property, the proposal and the planning controls are contained in the Statement of Basic Facts on which I rely.

2 For the appeal the main issues identified are concerned with the streetscape impacts in terms of the proposal not sufficiently being setback in accordance with the controls. There was concern about the front proposed fences impact on the streetscape character and also the impact on vegetation.

3 The proceedings commenced with the on-site hearing where there was the opportunity to inspect the site and also the neighbouring properties. Following this the matter was adjourned to allow the applicant further time to provide a more (DCP) responsive carport proposal. That has occurred and resulted in the parties reaching consent orders.

4 The amendments undertaken are contained in the applicant’s statement and they show that the front roof setback of the carport has been maximised and the carport has been connected to the existing building. The carport is also reduced in width and length and it connects to the roof of the existing building. Also the driveway to the carport area has been tapered so that there is less hard area in order to give reasonable access to the carport consequently there has been a maximisation of some landscaping area.

5 Conditions have been proposed so that retention of the existing mature tree vegetation can be optimised. I expressed some concerns about the alternative positions for the carport suggested on site whereby some of the mature vegetation along the eastern boundary of the property may have been interfered with. This would have created a noticeable change to the treed character of the area and I am now satisfied that this revised location represents a better balance between the provision of the carport and retention of existing vegetation.

6 I also had some concern about the sight distances due to the existing vegetation on the nature strip on the property to the north of the subject property, that may have interfered with safe access on to the road. However the revised location is more open and represents a more acceptable situation in terms of sight distances for vehicles exiting the subject property.

7 In light of the consent orders, I agree that they should be now made. The consent orders are:

1. The appeal is upheld.
2. The development application 984/05 for a carport is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure “A” and in accordance with plans prepared by North Shore Plan Service numbered Sheets 1 of 4 to 4 of 4 Revision B dated July 2005 and filed on 27 September 2006.
3. The exhibits be returned except for Exhibits 2, 6 and C.

___________________

R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
Rjs/ljr