Plater v Waverley Council
[2012] NSWLEC 1131
•23 May 2012
Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Plater v Waverley Council [2012] NSWLEC 1131 Hearing dates: 15 May 2012 Decision date: 23 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: Appeal upheld subject to conditions
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; off-street parking; impacts on streetscape and street tree Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996Cases Cited: Zhang v Canterbury Council [2001] NSWCA 167 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ms Jan Plater (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant: Ms J Hewitt (Solicitor)
Respondent: Mr S Patterson (Solicitor)
Applicant: HWL Ebsworth
Respondent: Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie
File Number(s): 10109 of 2012
Judgment
COMMISSIONER:The applicant is appealing Waverley Council's refusal of development application No. DA-196/2011 for removal of part of a front fence, installation of a hardstand car space and associated landscaping at 36 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road, Bondi Beach (the site).
The proposed development is the demolition of the sandstone front fence, the rebuilding of most of it, excavation of the front garden to accommodate a hardstand car space of porous paving, construction of retaining walls, and supplementary landscaping. The works will necessitate a driveway crossover from the street, this is proposed to be an extension of the existing driveway of 38 Sir Thomas Road; the resulting driveway will be shared by both properties. The driveway extends relatively close to the base of an established Acacia binervia (Syn. A. glaucescens) (Coastal Myall) planted by the applicant about 30 years ago as a street tree.
The appeal is made under s 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act).
The hearing commenced on site as a mandatory conciliation and arbitration hearing under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act). As no agreement was reached, the conciliation was terminated and the matter went directly to arbitration in accordance with s 34AA(2)(b) of the Court Act.
The issues
The remaining issues in contention between the parties are:
- Whether the proposal will unreasonably detract from the streetscape; and
- Potential loss of a street tree.
Two resident objectors gave evidence on site. Apart from potential loss of the tree, the principal objection is the loss of on-street parking. The objectors stated that many of the residential flat buildings on the northern side of the street were constructed in the 1920s and 30s and there is little or no on-site parking for residents. Given the proximity of the street to the beach, restaurants and so on, there is significant demand and competition for any on-street car space. Their contention is that the street outside the applicant's dwelling can accommodate two vehicles and therefore one will be lost if the development is approved. Safety issues were also raised - safety of pedestrians, as well as safe ingress and egress of vehicles to and from the proposed hardstand particularly given the proximity to a corner.
The site and its locality
The site is located on the southern side of Sir Thomas Mitchell Road south of the corner with Lucius Street. The site is within zone 2(c1) Residential - Medium Density under the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996 (WLEP). The southern side of the street, between Lucius Street and Campbell Parade, is a mixture of semi-detached dwellings and some older style two storey residential flat buildings at the eastern end. The northern section of the road is predominantly a mixture of older and contemporary part two, part three storey residential flat buildings.
The site is a part one, part two storey semi-detached dwelling. While the adjoining property to the north is listed as a heritage item in WLEP, the site itself is not listed nor is it located within a heritage conservation area.
The front of the site slopes from west to east. There are three mature and prominent Syagrus romanzoffiana (Queen/ Cocos Palm) near the dwelling as well as a range of shrubs. The front fence is comprised of large sandstone blocks similar to nearby fences. The wall acts as a retaining wall and the eastern end is failing structurally.
The adjoining property to the north has a two-car hardstand forward of the building line on the other side of the dividing wall between the properties. The hardstand is covered with a canvas sail. The attached property to the east has a double garage, also forward of the building line, with roof top terrace that adjoins the dividing fence on that side.
The assessment framework
Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996 (WLEP) applies. The council determined that the proposal does not comply with specific aims in Part 1 of the plan. These are:
3(7)(f)to improve the amenity of residential areas;
3(11)(b)to encourage land use patterns which reduce the need to travel by motor vehicle and increase the use of public transport, bicycles and walking to reduce the adverse impact of travel on the environment.
Objective 1(b) of Zone No 2 (c1) Residential - Medium and High Density is:
(b)to maintain and improve the amenity of the locality,
The proposal is permissible with consent.
Clause 45(4) of WLEP requires the consent authority to consider the effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or the area.
Waverley Development Control Plan 2010 (WDCP 2010) is relevant. This DCP came into force on 23 June 2010 and consolidates and replaces previous DCPs including Amendments 4 and 5 of Dwelling House DCP No. 2 (effective 1 May 2003 and 23 march 2005 respectively), and DCP No 14 Land Use and Transport (effective 1 December 2004).
Clause 1.4 of WDCP 2010 requires each Part of the DCP to be used in accordance with WLEP and other relevant Parts of WDCP 2010. The site is not in an area to which a specific 'Residential Character Study' applies and therefore the general controls within WDCP 2010 apply.
Part D1 - Dwelling House and Dual Occupancy Development cl 5.7 Vehicular Access and parking applies.
Objectives
(a)Ensure the design and size of off-street carparking facilities does not unreasonably detract from the appearance and quality of the dwelling-house or streetscape;
(c)Minimise loss of on-street carparking;
If the proposed off-street parking facilities or associated works will unreasonably detract from the appearance of the dwelling, streetscape or landscape, or from the heritage quality, or adversely impact on the pedestrian environment, or reduce the availability of on street car parking, a zero parking requirement may be imposed.
Note:The characteristics of some sites may mean that car parking should not be provided on site.
The objectives are not achieved unless:
Strategy 5.7.2Garages and carports are designed not to detract from the architectural integrity of the dwelling.
Strategy 5.7.3 Garages do not dominate the streetscape.
(Relevant) controlsAll car accommodation is to be located behind the front of the building line.
Existing sandstone walls and natural rock faces are generally not to be removed for the purpose of car accommodation and ancillary residential development.
Strategy 5.7.5Consideration has been given to the provision of dual access driveways and vehicular crossings to minimise the number of crossings and to maximise on-street parking.
Control (note)Note: Where an allotment has no existing off-street parking, and off-street parking is not a characteristic of the streetscape, vehicular access from the street is not allowed.
Part I1 Landscape Use and Transport of WDCP 2010 is also relevant. The context of the parking provisions outlined in cl 2.0 includes strategies to amongst other things, address issues regarding on-site parking demand. The specific objectives of this Part include:
1.2(b)Ensure the provision of off-street parking is subject to considerations of urban design, streetscape and heritage conservation.
1.2(c)Establish parking policies that encourage walking, cycling, and public transport usage thereby reducing car dependency.
The site is located in Parking Provision Zone B - described as a zone with good accessibility to public transport and services, moderately high density, significant on-street parking subject to pressures from traffic. The proposed provision rate of parking spaces per dwelling for a single dwelling with two to four bedrooms is from zero to a maximum of one or two.
Clause 5.0 of Part I1 considers urban design, streetscape and heritage conservation. Relevantly:
The LGA has older established areas, which were designed and built before the widespread use of cars. The retrospective provision of off-street car parking has caused significant impacts on streetscapes and has impacted upon the amenity of pedestrians and cyclists.
5.1Design
(b)Existing on-street parking supply is protected by minimising impacts of additional kerb crossings.
(c)The continuity of streetscapes, streetscape elements and landscaping is maintained.
(d)Car parking bays, garages, etc and vehicular access do not dominate the streetscape.
(f)Site layout, landscape design, deep soil zone provision and drainage are not detrimentally affected through the provision of on-site car parking.
5.2Parking and Access
(a)All car accommodation is to be located behind the front building line.
5.3New Vehicle Crossings
(a)Vehicular crossings for dwelling houses are to be of a single vehicle width only.
(b)Where there is no car parking on an original lot and off-street parking is not characteristic, vehicular access from the street is not permitted.
(f)Where possible, vehicular crossings should be shared with neighbouring properties.
The hearing and the evidence
The hearing commenced on site. The site and the street to the east and west were inspected. Measurements were taken to confirm the location of the extent of the proposed crossover, its distance from the tree, and the dimensions of the current and proposed on-street parking spaces. The likely location of tree roots was discussed.
During the inspection it became clear that the proposed driveway extension would require an alternative arrangement for stormwater discharge to the street from both 36 and 38 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road.
The site inspection also highlighted the inaccuracy of the plans and the dimensions of the on-street parking space. The distance between the splays of the existing driveways was measured to be 9.3 m; from the parking sign (east) to the splay (west) the distance is 8.8 m. Allowing for the driveway extension and splay, the remaining space is 5.9 m. The parties also noted the single marked out car space in front of the applicant's dwelling.
Planning - streetscape character
Mr Andrew Connor, Development Assessment Officer for council and Mr Warwick Gosling, Consultant Planner, prepared a joint report and gave oral evidence.
The planning and streetscape issues focus on whether off-street parking is characteristic of the area, whether the removal of part of the front sandstone wall will have a detrimental impact on the streetscape, and the application of relevant planning controls relating to off-street parking and the dimensions of the driveway and any remaining on-street parking spaces.
The planners agreed that should the driveway be extended, the remaining on-street parking space will be at least 5.9 m and thus compliant with the relevant Australian Standard for a car space of 5.4 m. However while not condoning it, Mr Connor's position is that at present, two small vehicles could park in front of the applicant's dwelling.
Mr Connor prepared a table summarising the existing parking facilities on the south-west side of Sir Thomas Mitchell Road between Campbell Parade and Lucius Street. Ten out of fifteen properties have garages or a hardstand; six of these are forward of the building line. Mr Connor stated that all of the off-street parking forward of the building line were approved prior to the introduction of the current restrictive parking controls [introduced in 2004/2005] and none of those would comply with the current control. All recent applications for front of building line off-street parking in the immediate area have been refused, which Mr Connor states demonstrates council's consistent application of those controls. He is concerned that a departure from these controls would set an undesirable precedent.
Under cross-examination, Mr Connor admitted that on the figures in the table, off-street parking was a characteristic of the immediate area. However, he considered the parking arrangements on both adjoining properties to be undesirable features of the streetscape and something the current controls seek to avoid.
While Mr Connor accepted that the majority of the stone wall was to be replaced and would still contribute to the streetscape, he maintains that the loss of part of it will have a detrimental impact on the streetscape. In his view, rather than the current curved path and soft landscaping, there will be a hardstand and a car which will also detract from the architectural qualities of the dwelling.
Mr Gosling for the applicant considers that the removal of part of the sandstone wall and the construction of the hardstand will not detract from the dwelling or the streetscape. In his opinion, from most viewing points in the street, the sandstone wall, existing dividing fences and supplementary and retained landscaping will screen the hardstand. Similarly, its proposed position closer to street level will also lessen the visual impact of a parked car on the dwelling.
Mr Gosling argues that the application is for a hardstand only and not a garage or carport; in his opinion the strategies 5.7.2 and 5.7.3 in cl 5.7 of WDCP 2010 apply to garages and or carports and not to hardstands. In his view, a hardstand in front of a dwelling has no greater impact than a driveway leading to a compliant garage incorporated into the building design. In his opinion, a hardstand is not properly characterised as 'car accommodation' and therefore a number of controls in WDCP do not apply.
Arboricultural - impact on the street tree
Council's Strategic Tree Planning Officer Mr Bernard Usher and the applicant's arborist, Mr Guy Paroissien prepared a joint report and gave oral evidence. The arborists agree that the tree is worthy of retention with a medium safe useful life expectancy and of moderate to high landscape significance. In Mr Usher's view, it is the best example of the species as a street tree in the LGA.
Approximately 12 months ago, a new storm water pipe was installed. According to Mr Paroissien's report, the pipe is 2.5 m from the tree. At the kerb face the excavated depth was 155 mm and at the existing pathway, the excavated depth was 225 mm. Photographs in that report and the joint report show the exposed pipe with an additional 600 mm wide strip of soil and roots exposed towards the tree. The photographs show many fine roots in the vicinity of the pipe. Figure 1 in those reports indicates four woody roots that would require pruning if the driveway was to be extended. The report does not state the diameter of the roots but I believe Mr Paroissien said they were about 40 mm in diameter.
In Mr Paroissien's opinion, the excavation for the storm water pipe is generally deeper than the depth required for the installation of a new driveway and subgrade and therefore no additional woody roots will be lost. By his calculations, the additional excavation beyond the pipe will reduce the actual area of root loss to less than 3.4 m2 or 1.15% of the calculated Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and 2.4 m2 or about 8% of the calculated Structural Root Zone (SRZ). He considers these incursions to be within acceptable limits. He contends that the growth of new roots into the backfill surrounding the storm water pipe indicates the good health of the tree although he states that the amount of rain in that time would have helped.
While Mr Usher agrees that roots to the depth of the excavation for the pipe have been removed, he is still concerned that the additional 600 mm will require the pruning of structural roots to a depth of between 100 and 175 mm. He considers that apart from the thickness of the driveway and the subgrade, additional excavation will be required to allow for future root growth. Mr Usher is also concerned that given the limiting effect of the kerb on the development of structural roots to the north of the tree, that the tree may have produced more structural roots to the south. He indicated a section of pavement that was lifted. The arborists agreed that this was most probably due to root growth. He is concerned that structural roots in an unpaved section between the footpath and the wall may be cut and in the absence of root mapping or structural details for the construction of the driveway, this poses an unacceptable risk to the tree's health and possible stability.
The arborists could not agree on the relative tolerance of Acacias to root pruning. With respect to the lifted section of footpath, In Mr Paroissien's opinion, the slab could be removed by hand and a new slab poured to replace the old one but ramped slightly to join the new driveway. He considers that this would have little impact on the tree.
The arborists agree that should the proposal be approved, a detailed tree protection plan should be prepared prior to the issue of a construction certificate.
Submissions
In essence, the applicant's position is that only a portion of the sandstone wall is to be removed and what will be rebuilt will continue to contribute to the character if the streetscape.
In regards to the tree, Ms Hewitt for the applicant contends that the council's contention concerned the loss of the tree. In her view, on the basis of Mr Paroissien's evidence, there will be little impact on the tree and it will remain as a healthy and viable landscape feature, particularly if proposed tree protection conditions are imposed.
Ms Hewitt submits that the proposed development will not have an unreasonable impact on the streetscape as contended by the council. She notes that the planners are both of the view that driveways are a characteristic of the immediate area and that there is a range of parking styles including garages. While she accepts that the approvals were given under previous controls, they are nonetheless a character of the streetscape. She argues that the proposed hardstand will have far less impact than the parking arrangements on neighbouring properties. In regards to recent refusals of development applications for off-street parking on nearby properties, Ms Hewitt considers it would be necessary to consider the particular circumstances of the entire DA. She also noted other approvals for hardstands etc in other parts of the LGA under the current controls.
With respect to the loss of on-street parking, Ms Hewitt notes that there is only one marked car space at present and what remains will be compliant. While two smaller cars may be able to park there now, the council must have regard to what is a legal or accepted standard.
In this regard, Ms Hewitt considers the proposal complies with objectives (a) and (c) of cl 5.7 Part D1 WDCP 2010 in that the design of the hardstand does not unreasonably detract from the appearance and quality of the dwelling or streetscape and there is no loss of on street parking, rather a net gain of one space. Similarly the shared driveway complies with cl 5.3(f) in Part I1. With respect to the objectives and controls regarding a planning approach to reducing the reliance on private vehicles, she contends that this goes to broader issues of land use rather than developments such as the proposal and are more relevant to new developments. In support of her contentions she notes that council's Manager of Transport and Development did not oppose the proposal, subject to conditions.
In regards to the stormwater outlet, after discussions with an engineer during the hearing , Ms Hewitt submits that the pipes can be suitably engineered and the issue is capable of resolution through a condition.
Mr Patterson for the council contends that the relevant parking provisions in the current DCP have evolved specifically to address the issue of the retrospective fitting of car accommodation onto properties of an age where parking was not contemplated. He argues that the controls include a zero parking provision and for older style dwellings such as the applicant's, there can be no expectation of off-street parking being permitted. Specifically, the control requiring all car accommodation to be forward of the building line came into effect in Amendment 5 of DCP No 2 (March 2005) and in DCP No 14 in December 2004; prior to this, there was no specific control. He stresses the fact that none of the garages/ carports/ hardstands forward of the building line, in this section of the street, have been approved under the current DCP.
In regards to Mr Gosling's opinion that a hardstand is not car accommodation for the purpose of WDCP 2010, Mr Patterson contends that this is too narrow a construction and when both relevant Parts of the DCP are read in conjunction with each other, hardstands are clearly characterised as car accommodation. He argues that if hardstands were not car accommodation but simply the equivalent of a driveway forward of a garage, then the relevant controls would have little to do.
Similarly, in regards to the sandstone wall, he considers the intent of cl 5.7 in Part D1 is to prevent the loss of sandstone wall.
With respect to the loss of on-street parking, Mr Patterson contends that the inaccuracies of the plans have lead to assumptions that on-street parking was more limited than it actually is. He submits that the planning controls refer more generally to on-street parking 'supply' and the evidence in the street is that there are a range of non-standard car spaces that can be satisfactorily used by small cars, motor bikes, trailers and the like. He argues that the extension of the driveway will reduce on-street parking supply.
Similarly, Mr Patterson considers that the inaccuracies in the plans have created uncertainty as to the likely impact of the driveway on the tree; he says this is not assisted by the lack of effective root mapping to the south.
In conclusion, Mr Patterson contends that the WDCP 2010 should be the focal point of the Court's consideration and the appeal should be dismissed.
Findings
Planning issues
As I am reminded by Mr Patterson and consistent with the findings in Zhang v Canterbury Council [2001] NSWCA 167, I accept that while the WDCP 2010 is the focal point for my consideration of this appeal, I am not required to adopt it uncritically if I am otherwise satisfied that I have properly assessed the matter in accordance with s 79C of the Act.
In regards to the contention that the proposed development should be refused as it will unreasonably detract from the existing dwelling and unreasonably impact on the streetscape, I make the following findings.
I reject Mr Gosling's opinion that a 'hardstand' is not 'car accommodation'. This proposal involves the creation of a driveway extension from the street to a paved area specifically for the purpose of parking a car. The hardstand is the destination as would be a garage or a carport. I agree with Mr Patterson, that while certain strategies in cl 5.7 WDCP 2010 refer specifically to carports and or garages, the objectives and controls are much broader and include a reference to 'off-street parking facilities' or even more generally, 'off-street parking'. The DCP requires all Parts to be read in conjunction with one another. Clause 5 in Part I1 refers to 'off-street parking', 'car parking bays', and 'vehicular access from the street'. While the word 'hardstand' is not used, in the context of the proposed development it is clearly 'car accommodation' or a 'car parking bay' or 'off-street parking'. Therefore Mr Gosling's tenuous assertion that the control for parking forward of the building line does not apply, is rejected.
Notwithstanding that finding, the applicability of that control should be assessed against the particular circumstances of the site and compliance or otherwise with other controls.
I accept the applicant's submissions that the removal of part of the stone wall will have no significant negative impact on the character of the streetscape or on the dwelling. The wall is clearly in need of repair and the bulk of it will be rebuilt in its original form with an existing pillar creating a logical end point. The retention of most of the wall maintains the visual connection between the remaining and similar sandstone walls on the adjoining properties. The sandstone walls on the adjoining properties are broken up by driveways and therefore the proposed development is not inconsistent with the pattern of fencing in that section of the street.
In regards to the detrimental visual impact on the dwelling of a vehicle parking on the hardstand, I am satisfied that the combination of the required excavation for the hardstand, the elevated position of the dwelling, the retention of the established palm trees as well as supplementary landscaping, will create a situation where a parked vehicle will not unreasonably detract from the dwelling. Unlike the adjoining properties, there is no covering proposed as part of this development.
In consideration of the extension of the driveway crossing and the loss of on-street parking, the proposal results in a sharing of part of an existing driveway, something recommended in cl 5.3(f) Part I1 WDCP. While I acknowledge the limited on-street parking in the area and I accept that two small vehicles may currently be able to park on the street outside the applicant's property, only one space is marked and a compliant space will be retained. Technically, at worst there is a neutral impact or at best, a gain of one space.
I note that during the internal referral process, council's Manager of Transport and Development considered the proposal satisfactory subject to the imposition of conditions. No specific safety issues or concerns over the loss of any on-street parking were raised by that Manager or in council's contentions.
In terms of the character of this section of Sir Thomas Mitchell Road, driveways and car accommodation forward of the main building line are a characteristic of the street although some garages on older flat buildings have been incorporated into to what may be considered part of the building design. Therefore the proposal is not inconsistent with the streetscape character.
In regards to cl 45(4) of WLEP, I am satisfied that the proposed development will have no detrimental effects on the heritage significance of the adjoining heritage item at 38 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road.
While I accept that the WDCP requires all car accommodation to be behind the building line, in the circumstances of this matter I consider strict compliance with this control is unnecessary for the following reasons. As stated above, I don't consider the proposal will unreasonably detract from the character of the dwelling or the streetscape; the proposal is neutral or positive in its impact on on-street parking; and a shared driveway minimises potential conflicts with pedestrian access. Therefore, on the merits of the proposal, I find no planning grounds sufficient to dismiss the appeal.
With respect to the issue arising from the location of the stormwater outlets from the site and no. 38, I am satisfied that the matter is capable of being engineered and that an appropriate condition can be drafted.
Arboricultural issues
The arborists disagree on whether the installation of the driveway will have a significant detrimental impact on the Coastal Myall. The fact that a new storm water pipe was installed some 12 months ago without any obvious health of stability impacts on the tree bodes reasonably well for its ability to cope with a small degree of additional root pruning. The figures in the joint report show moderately sized woody roots within the 600 mm wide area between the storm water pipe and the proposed eastern extension of the driveway. While I accept Mr Usher's concerns over further root pruning, I am persuaded by Mr Paroissien's reasoning that given the fall of the site, the installation of the driveway to the minimum depth required will not have an unreasonable impact on the tree's health or stability. However, the root pruning to achieve this must be undertaken by hand and under the supervision of an arborist. While the sandy soil clearly facilitates root growth, some follow up maintenance will be required.
In regards to the issue of the lifted footpath slab, the arborists agree that this is likely to indicate a root beneath it. I agree with Mr Usher that any roots on the southern side of the tree are likely to be important for stability, I also agree with Mr Paroissien that the slope of the site and the finished level of the hardstand will require less excavation to the south.
On the basis of the arboricultural evidence before me, I am satisfied that the prosed driveway will not unreasonably impact on the health or structure of the Coastal Myall and the appeal should be upheld subject to conditions.
Conditions
I agree with Mr Paroissien in that a condition should be imposed requiring the hand removal of the lifted footpath slab and it's repouring in situ to bring it up to the level of the new driveway. In the alternative, any Tree Protection Plan, as required by condition 3, is to include recommendations for this to occur and to minimise any disturbance to the roots beneath or beyond that slab. While not discussed during the hearing, the Tree Protection Plan should also include recommendations for the reconstruction of the wall and the minimisation of any severing of roots that may be found in its vicinity.
During the hearing, the applicant raised concerns over proposed condition 4 requiring a $10,000 bond to be lodged with council to ensure the protection and maintenance of the Acacia. The sum is to be refunded 24 months from the issue of the occupation certificate. The applicant contends that a period of 31 days is adequate to satisfy the council that the tree has not been detrimentally affected. Mr Usher stated that council generally required an assessment to be undertaken after a minimum of two growing seasons. In his view, the period could be reduced to 18 months but no less.
Given the uncontested significance of the tree, its contribution to the streetscape and the degree of uncertainty with respect to the pruning of roots, I consider it reasonable to impose the bond for a period of 18 months. Condition 4 is to be modified accordingly.
In regards to the reconfiguration of the stormwater outlets from numbers 36 and 38 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road, an appropriate condition is to be drafted.
Conclusions, Directions and Orders
On the basis of the evidence before me, the parties' submissions, consideration of WLEP and WDCP and other matters under s 79C, I find on balance that the particular circumstances of the proposal warrant the upholding of the appeal, subject to conditions.
Given the findings made in respect of draft conditions 3 and 4, as well as a new condition dealing with the reconfiguration of the stormwater outlets, the parties are directed to amend the conditions and to file an agreed copy of the conditions by close of business 30 May 2012. On receipt of those conditions, including an electronic copy in 'word', I will make the following orders in chambers.
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development application DA-196/2011 for the demolition of a sandstone front fence and excavation of the front yard of s semi-detached dwelling to accommodate a hardstand car space and associated works at 36 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
(3) Exhibits 1, 2, 3, B, C and D are returned.
____________________
J Fakes
Commissioner of the Court
Decision last updated: 23 May 2012
0