Psec Project Services Pty Ltd v Kiama Municipal Council

Case •

[2018] NSWLEC 1501

•

27 September 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: PSEC Project Services Pty Ltd v Kiama Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 1501
Hearing dates: 17 September 2018
Date of orders: 27 September 2018
Decision date: 27 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

The Court orders that:
(1) The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 10.2016.231.1 and rely upon the amended plans in the table at [99(1)].
(2) The Appeal is upheld.
(3) Development Application No. 10.2016.231.1 for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and the construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 16 x 3 bedroom units over one and a half levels of basement car parking, with a total of 40 car parking spaces (8 visitor and 32 residential, 4 of which are accessible), on the land legally described as Lot 1 DP 309656, Lot 1 DP 176929, Lot 2 DP 774101 and Lot 3 DP 774101 with a street address of 15-17 Bourrool Lane, Kiama, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
(4) No orders as to costs.
(5) Exhibits 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 are returned.

Catchwords: APPEAL – development application – residential flat building – consent orders – objections raised by residents – height, bulk and scale – streetscape – amenity and safety – overshadowing – view loss – car parking – capacity of laneway
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Kiama Local Environmental Plan 2011
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Practice Note - Class 1 Development Appeals
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development
State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land
Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140
Texts Cited: Kiama Development Control Plan 2012
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: PSEC Project Services Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Kiama Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Wauchope, Solicitor (Applicant)
A Seton, Solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Dentons (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/294663
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: The area immediately south of Surf Beach in Kiama is currently in a state of transition as older single dwellings make way for higher density development consistent with its R3 Medium Density Residential zoning. One site, on Bourrool Lane, remains largely vacant apart from a dwelling house in poor condition on one portion of the site. PSEC Project Services Pty Ltd (“PSEC”) seeks to redevelop the site, known as 15-17 Bourrool Lane, and seeks development consent for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a four storey residential flat building containing 16 three bedroom units with two levels of basement car parking containing 40 spaces. A development application was refused by Kiama Municipal Council (“the Council”) on 16 May 2017. PSEC appeals against that decision pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EPA Act”).

  2. Following the commencement of the appeal, the parties participated in a conciliation conference held pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (“LEC Act”). Subsequent to the termination of that conference, on 10 May 2018, leave was granted to PSEC to amend the plans the subject of the application. The amendments result in a proposal that is compliant with the height of building development standard and addresses the concerns raised by the Council in its Statement of Facts and Contentions. As a result, the Council now agrees to development consent being granted.

  3. In circumstances where the Council agrees to the grant of development consent, I am nonetheless required to carry out an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act to determine if it is lawful and appropriate to grant consent. I am also required to consider the evidence and submissions of the objectors. The Practice Note - Class 1 Development Appeals sets out the procedural requirements at paragraph 99:

“Any application for consent final orders in development appeals will be listed before the Court for determination. The parties will be required to present such evidence as is necessary to allow the Court to determine whether it is lawful and appropriate to grant the consent or approval having regard to the whole of the relevant circumstances, including the proposed conditions. The consent authority will be required to demonstrate that relevant statutory provisions have been complied with and that any objection by any person has been properly taken into account. Additionally, the consent authority will be required to demonstrate that it has given reasonable notice to all persons who objected to the proposal of the following:

(i) the content of the proposed orders (including the proposed conditions of consent);

(ii) the date of the hearing by the Court to consider making the proposed consent orders; and

(iii) the opportunity for any such person to be heard,

or that, in the circumstances of the case, notification is not necessary.”

  1. For the reasons set out below, I have determined that it is appropriate to grant development consent. A residential flat building is permissible in the zone, the proposal complies with the development standards for height and floor space ratio and it provides adequate car parking and vehicular access. I have also found that Bourrool Lane can accommodate the additional traffic, and that the proposal does not cause an unacceptable visual impact. Although the proposal will cause significant view loss to 7 Hartwell Crescent, that impact is not unreasonable and is largely unavoidable given the location of the site, the topography of the land and the zoning of the area.

The site and locality

  1. The hearing commenced with an inspection of the site and its immediate locality. The subject site comprises 4 lots legally described as Lot 1 DP 309656, Lot 1 DP 176929, Lot 2 DP 774101 and Lot 3 DP 774101. One of those lots, Lot 1 DP 309656 is occupied by a single dwelling house, and the remaining lots are vacant land. A right of carriageway for vehicular access is registered over Lots 2 and 3 DP 774101 in favour of the residential dwellings located at 18A and 18B Bourrool Lane.

  2. The combined area of the site is 1984.9m2, and it occupies a large portion of the western side of Bourrool Lane with a frontage to Bourrool Lane of around 40m, as pictured in Figure 1.

  1. The site is predominantly rectangular in shape with an irregular north-eastern boundary, due to Lot 2 DP 774101 forming a small rectangular parcel extending to the north of the other allotments.

  2. The site is relatively flat at the street frontage onto Bourrool Lane but falls approximately 8 metres from the south-eastern corner to the north-western corner.

  3. Bourrool Lane is a “no through traffic” lane of about 105m in length, accessed from Bourrool Street. The first section of the lane is around 65m in length, before the lane bends to the north east and ends in a dead end. A public pedestrian laneway between numbers 4 and 6 Barney Street connects the dead end of Bourrool Lane to Barney Street, providing pedestrian access to Kiama Surf Beach. As depicted in Figure 1, Barney Street becomes Bourrool Street where the road bends away from Surf Beach.

  4. Adjoining the site to the south are single dwellings that have frontage to Hartwell Crescent. The site is adjoined to the north by a single residential dwelling and two townhouses. Single dwellings similarly occupy the lots to the east on the opposite side of Bourrool Lane.

  5. Surrounding development comprises of a mix of building typology with multi-dwelling housing, residential flat buildings and some single dwellings and dual occupancies. Some of those single dwellings are of older construction.

Planning controls

  1. Section 4.15(1)(a) of the EPA Act requires that the Court, in exercising the functions of the consent authority, consider the provisions of any applicable environmental planning instrument, development control plan, planning agreement, and regulations. Amongst other things, s 4.15(1) also requires consideration of the likely impacts of the development, the suitability of the site for development, any submissions made, and the public interest.

  2. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Kiama Local Environmental Plan 2011 (“KLEP 2011”). It is in the centre of a large area with the same zoning. Clause 2.3(2) of the KLEP 2011 requires the Court to “have regard to the objectives for development in a zone when determining a development application in respect of land within the zone”. The zone objectives for the R3 zone are:

“• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

• To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

• To provide opportunities for multi-storey residential accommodation in locations close to shops, transport nodes, commercial services, public open space and employment opportunities.

• To provide increased housing choice particularly housing suited to older people and people with a disability.

• To increase the supply of affordable housing.”

  1. Residential accommodation is an innominate permissible use within the R3 zone under the KLEP 2011, and residential flat buildings fall within “residential accommodation”.

  2. Clause 4.3 of the KLEP 2011 establishes an 11m building height development standard in accordance with the Height of Buildings Map, and cl 4.4 establishes a maximum floor space ratio of 1:1 in accordance with the Floor Space Ratio map. The proposal complies with both controls, with a maximum height of 11m and a floor space ratio of 0.998:1.

  3. The site is in the coastal zone, and as such cl 5.5 of the KLEP 2011 applies. Although this clause was repealed following the commencement of the appeal, cl 5.5 continues to apply to the proposal by virtue of cl 8(1) of the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006. The objectives of cl 5.5 include the protection of the coastal environment. Clause 5.5(2) sets out a number of mandatory considerations, and sub-cl (3) a number of pre-conditions to the grant of development consent, as follows:

“(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has considered:

(a) existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians (including persons with a disability) with a view to:

(i) maintaining existing public access and, where possible, improving that access, and

(ii) identifying opportunities for new public access, and

(b) the suitability of the proposed development, its relationship with the surrounding area and its impact on the natural scenic quality, taking into account:

(i) the type of the proposed development and any associated land uses or activities (including compatibility of any land-based and water-based coastal activities), and

(ii) the location, and

(iii) the bulk, scale, size and overall built form design of any building or work involved, and

(c) the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the coastal foreshore including:

(i) any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore, and

(ii) any loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore, and

(d) how the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands, can be protected, and

(e) how biodiversity and ecosystems, including:

(i) native coastal vegetation and existing wildlife corridors, and

(ii) rock platforms, and

(iii) water quality of coastal waterbodies, and

(iv) native fauna and native flora, and their habitats,

can be conserved, and

(f) the cumulative impacts of the proposed development and other development on the coastal catchment.

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the proposed development will not impede or diminish, where practicable, the physical, land-based right of access of the public to or along the coastal foreshore, and

(b) if effluent from the development is disposed of by a non-reticulated system, it will not have a negative effect on the water quality of the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

(c) the proposed development will not discharge untreated stormwater into the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

(d) the proposed development will not:

(i) be significantly affected by coastal hazards, or

(ii) have a significant impact on coastal hazards, or

(iii) increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other land.”

  1. The proposal seeks consent to excavate to construct the basement, and as such cl 6.2 of the KLEP 2011 applies regarding earthworks. The objective of cl 6.2 is to ensure that the proposed earthworks will not have a detrimental impact on the environment and neighbouring uses, and the clause provides at (3):

“(3) Before granting development consent for earthworks, the consent authority must consider the following matters:

(a) the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality,

(b) the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land,

(c) the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both,

(d) the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties,

(e) the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material,

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics,

(g) the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area,

(h) any measures proposed to minimise or mitigate the impacts referred to in paragraph (g).”

  1. The provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71–Coastal Protection (“SEPP 71”), the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55–Remediation of Land (“SEPP 55”) and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 also apply to the site.

  2. State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (“SEPP 65”) also applies, and provides at cl 28(2) that:

“(2) In determining a development application for consent to carry out development to which this Policy applies, a consent authority is to take into consideration (in addition to any other matters that are required to be, or may be, taken into consideration):

(a) the advice (if any) obtained from the design review panel, and

(b) the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and

(c) the Apartment Design Guide.”

  1. Clause 30 of SEPP 65 provides:

“(1) If an application for the modification of a development consent or a development application for the carrying out of development to which this Policy applies satisfies the following design criteria, the consent authority must not refuse the application because of those matters:

(a) if the car parking for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum amount of car parking specified in Part 3J of the Apartment Design Guide,

(b) if the internal area for each apartment will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum internal area for the relevant apartment type specified in Part 4D of the Apartment Design Guide,

(c) if the ceiling heights for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum ceiling heights specified in Part 4C of the Apartment Design Guide.

Note. The Building Code of Australia specifies minimum ceiling heights for residential flat buildings.

(2) Development consent must not be granted if, in the opinion of the consent authority, the development or modification does not demonstrate that adequate regard has been given to:

(a) the design quality principles, and

(b) the objectives specified in the Apartment Design Guide for the relevant design criteria.”

  1. The Kiama Development Control Plan 2012 (“KDCP 2012”) also applies to the site, and establishes controls for setbacks, maintenance of views, car parking, landscaping and waste management. Section 5 of chapter 2 sets out the controls relating to the maintenance of views and vistas. In the introduction to the objectives and controls, it states:

“… adjoining residents who also enjoy views need to feel that their 'home' is not unreasonably affected by loss of views caused by new development. It is not possible in an urban environment to protect all views for all people.

Exceptions to compliance with view sharing principles may be granted in areas which have been targeted for higher density development however, sensitive design will still need to be undertaken to ensure that wherever possible view lines from existing development are maintained. In these instances a demonstrated sensitivity to view lines from public places will also need to be undertaken.”

  1. Section 5 includes the following controls:

“C6 Any development in Kiama should incorporate view sharing principles into the design and siting of development to ensure that where possible with that existing view lines are not detrimentally impacted.

…

C8 Development should ensure, where possible, that there is no unreasonable loss of existing view lines from existing development.

C9 No one dwelling should be sited to maximise the views for its occupants to the exclusion of nearby resident or neighbours.

...

C10 Building design should have regard to the topography of the site and avoid unnecessary bulk or alteration of natural ground levels.

C11 Where there is a potential for view loss Council may require a maximum building height of less than the maximum allowable for part of the proposed building to ensure view sharing.

C12 Council may consider varying setbacks and building lines where variance would result in a positive view sharing outcomes

C13 Reference is to be made to principles handed down in the Land and Environment Court with regard to view sharing.”

  1. The objectives of these controls include the following:

“• To maintain view sharing principles though the development and redevelopment of areas.

• To ensure that where practical new development is designed and sited not to significantly alter views (including water and/or escarpment views).

• To ensure that primary private views are maintained through the addition of new development.

• To retain views to and from the water.

• To protect conserve and maintain the landform of the municipality

• To limit potential for large bulky housing and development

• To encourage sensitive siting of housing”

  1. However, the controls for medium density development, contained in Chapter 5 of the KDCP 2012, make it clear that a certain loss of views may be expected as development form changes for areas undergoing redevelopment for a higher density. Specifically, it provides:

“Areas that undergo redevelopment to medium density housing forms will change quite dramatically. Whilst Council is committed to the principles of view sharing it must be noted that in these areas a certain loss of views may be expected as development forms change. Where possible designers should attempt to preserve views through the development process. However, loss of views cannot be used as the significant determinant in assessing an application.”

  1. Chapter 5 of the KDCP 2012 also sets out the setback controls, which are contained at C10 of Section 2. C10 requires a minimum setback of 6m to the primary street frontage, and minimum setbacks of 6m for the side and rear boundaries.

  2. Further, Section 9 of Chapter 5 of the KDCP 2012 concerns safety and security and relevantly states as follows:

“Objectives

…

Ensure that development contributes positively to the streetscape and community through safe and appropriate design.

…

C40 Vehicle access points must not dominate the building facade. Car park access should be integrated with the building's overall façade…”

Contentions raised

  1. The Council raised a number of issues through its Statement of Facts and Contentions, which was filed upon the commencement of the appeal. Those contentions can be summarised as follows:

  • The height of the proposed development is excessive (contention 1),

  • The bulk, scale, type and size of the proposed development is not suitable for the site and is inconsistent with the objectives of cl 5.5 of the KLEP 2012 (contention 2),

  • There will be an adverse impact on the Bourrool Lane streetscape (contention 3),

  • The proposed extent of the cut is excessive and there is insufficient information with respect to the extent of excavation and fill (contentions 4 and 8),

  • The development does not provide a satisfactory level of amenity, safety and security for future occupants (contentions 5 and 6),

  • The proposed development will have an unacceptable impact on views (contention 7),

  • The proposed car parking is inadequate (contention 9), and

  • The development is not considered suitable for the site given the inadequate width of Bourrool Lane (contention 10).

  1. The Council also raised a public interest contention that concerns the issues raised by the objectors, which are outlined below.

  2. The Council now agrees that each of the contentions raised have been resolved through the amended plans, and submits that it is lawful and appropriate to grant development consent based on the amended development application.

Resident evidence and submissions

  1. The original development application was advertised and notified for a period of 14 days, in accordance with the notification provisions of the KDCP 2012. The Council received 12 submissions during that period. After the commencement of the appeal proceedings and following the Council's decision to consent to the grant of development consent, the Council's solicitor notified the objectors in writing by letter of 31 August 2018. The letter included a copy of the proposed consent orders and the draft conditions of consent.

  2. As a result, a number of residents who remain opposed to the proposal attended the site inspection, gave evidence and made submissions expressing their concerns with respect to the proposed development. Those concerns, together with concerns expressed in written submissions, can be summarised as follows:

  • The scale of the development is inappropriate given the location and restricted access to the laneway, and as such is an overdevelopment of the site,

  • The proposal will generate significant traffic for Bourrool Lane,

  • The proposal will exacerbate existing problems with insufficient parking during peak periods,

  • The proposal will create safety concerns in the laneway as it is a thoroughfare for pedestrians including children,

  • The laneway is of insufficient width to service the proposed development, with the narrow bend reducing sight distance, and the parking bays are insufficient to overcome traffic safety concerns,

  • There will be a significant loss of views from 7 Hartwell Crescent caused by the height and bulk of the proposed development,

  • The additional traffic will impact the trees near the road reserve,

  • The garbage truck turning circles do not satisfactorily demonstrate how a garbage truck will navigate the narrow laneway,

  • The garbage room is provided beyond the 6.0m setback,

  • There is insufficient landscaping within the front setback, and

  • There will be overshadowing of 5 and 7 Hartwell Crescent and 19A Bourrool Lane.

  1. There is no evidence that the additional traffic will impact the trees near the road reserve. The remaining concerns are dealt with in my findings on each of the contentions raised by the Council.

Expert evidence

  1. Mr Tom Goode and Mr Elaine Treglown, town planners, gave expert opinion evidence concerning the town planning issues. That evidence was given by a joint report and a supplementary joint report tendered in the proceedings, and much of that evidence was based on an agreed position.

  2. Mr Terry Wu and Mr Ken Hollyoak, traffic engineers, gave expert opinion evidence on the issues of carparking and adequacy of Bourrool Lane. That evidence was given by a joint report, which followed an updated traffic assessment report prepared on behalf of the applicant by Instructure Consulting Engineers.

Height, bulk, scale, type and size of the development

  1. The contentions raised by the Council concerned the overall height of the proposed development, as well as its bulk and scale. Further, a number of the resident objectors submitted that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site.

  2. The evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown is that, as a result of the amendments to the plans, the proposed development is in keeping with Council's desired scale and character of the street and local area as it is for a permissible use in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, meets the FSR development standard and the height development standard. They opine that the building is similar in height and number of storeys to development at 2 Barney Street Kiama, located to the northeast of the site.

  3. Mr Goode and Ms Treglown are also of the opinion that reasonable daylight access will continue to be provided to all adjoining developments and the public domain, as the amended proposal allows for a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to the public domain and the adjoining developments.

  4. As a result, Mr Goode and Ms Treglown agree that the objectives of the height development standard contained at cl 4.3 of the KLEP 2011 are met. Those objectives are:

“(a) to ensure future development is in keeping with the desired scale and character of the street and local area,

(b) to allow reasonable daylight access to all developments and the public domain.”

  1. Further, consistent with cl 5.5(2)(b) of the KLEP 2011, Mr Goode and Ms Treglown agree that the type, bulk, scale and size of the development is appropriate and suitable for site for the reasons expressed above.

  2. For the following reasons I accept that the height, bulk, scale, type and size of the development is suitable for the site and that the requirements of cl 5.5(2) have been considered.

  3. Firstly, the proposed development complies with height and FSR development standards. As such, I accept the submission of PSEC that it is of a height, bulk and density that is consistent with the controls and with what is intended for the site.

  4. Secondly, the proposed development complies with setback controls established by the KDCP 2013, by providing 6m setbacks for each boundary.

  5. Thirdly, each façade of the proposed building is articulated to reduce its visual impact and create interest. This is demonstrated by the site analysis, an extract of which is at Figure 2.

  1. Fourthly, the bulk is stepped at various points to match the topographic context and remain under the 11m height control. As a result, the design sits comfortably within the site and is of an appropriate scale. I accept the evidence of Ms Treglown, given on site, that the result is that together with the amendment to the proposal to include a landscaped roof over the driveway, this design allows the development to present as three storeys from a number of vantage points.

  2. Fifthly, the development has been orientated to take advantage of the northerly aspect toward Surf Beach.

  3. As a result, I am satisfied that the bulk, scale, size and overall built form of the building is suitable for the site and has been designed to respond to the location and topography of the site. Consistent with cl 5.5(2)(b), I am satisfied that the proposed development is suitable in light of its relationship with the surrounding area and its impact on the natural scenic quality of the area.

Overshadowing

  1. A number of residents raised concerns about the overshadowing that will be caused to adjoining dwelling houses as a result of the proposed development. The properties that will be the subject of overshadowing by the proposed development are 5 and 7 Hartwell Crescent and 19A Bourrool Lane.

  2. The evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown is that reasonable solar access will continue to be provided to all adjoining developments and the public domain. They agree that there is some shadow impact on 19A Bourrool Lane between 2-3pm, and that a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight can be retained for the north facing living rooms windows/or doors and primary private open space of the adjoining developments at 5 and 7 Hartwell Crescent.

  3. I am satisfied that there is no unreasonable overshadowing caused by the proposed development. Firstly, I accept the evidence that overshadowing impacts are limited and comply with the controls in the KDCP 2013. When considering access to direct sunlight on 21 June, the overshadowing of 19A Bourrool Lane is limited to between 2-3pm, and the overshadowing of 7 Hartwell is limited to the morning period before 10am. Whilst some overshadowing of the rear garden at 7 Hartwell Crescent occurs throughout the day on 21 June, I accept that this overshadowing is negligible and is mitigated by existing overshadowing caused by the fence. I accept the evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown that the shadow diagrams demonstrate that each of the properties at 5 and 7 Hartwell Crescent and 19A Bourrool Lane retain a minimum of 3 hours of solar access mid-winter. As such, the development complies with the solar access requirements of the KDCP 2013 at Section 4, C23, which requires that “[a] minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight is to be retained to north facing living room windows and/or doors and primary private open space of existing development adjoining proposed medium density development.”

  4. Secondly, I accept the submission made on behalf of PSEC that the overshadowing impacts are those envisaged by the controls for height, FSR and setbacks. Thirdly, the articulated façade and stepping of the bulk with the topography of the land reduces potential overshadowing caused by the proposed development. As a result, the extent of overshadowing has been minimised through the design of the proposed development.

Streetscape and driveway

  1. The frontage of the site on Bourrool Lane is the highest point of the site. As a result, the design of the driveway is for entry at this highest point and at the most southern end of the frontage, directly from the western corner of Bourrool Lane. To allow for a compliant gradient, the driveway then runs along the Bourrool Lane frontage, bends around toward the rear of the site, and then allows entry to the basement at the northern end of the site. This is depicted by the landscape plan and the ground floor plan in Figure 3. As a result, the Council initially contended that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the Bourrool Lane streetscape.

  1. In the amended development application part of the driveway is now enclosed by a roof with sufficient structural depth to accommodate landscaping, and a separate pedestrian pathway has been deleted. The evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown is that the enclosure of part of the driveway will reduce the amount of visible hard surface adjacent to the frontage of the site, thereby reducing the impact on streetscape character. They also opine that the deletion of the pedestrian pathway and its replacement with deep soil landscaped area is a more suitable response to the streetscape amenity of the site. Further, their agreed evidence is that the additional landscaping above the driveway enclosure and the reduction of the front boundary fence to a 1.2m picket fence in front of a 600mm barrier will result in an improved streetscape outcome. The total landscaping provided is now 544m2, which is 27.4% of the site area. This is compliant with the minimum landscaping control of 25% specified by C43 of Section 10 of Chapter 5 of the KDCP 2012.

  2. As such, the evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown is that the visual impact of the paved driveway area will be reduced by the increased landscaped frontage. Whilst Ms Treglown opines that the placement of the driveway has impacted the extent of cut on the site, she agrees that the roof over part of the driveway will reduce the extent of the basement which is visible on the eastern elevation.

  3. I accept the evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown that the enclosure of the driveway with landscaping above, the landscaping forward of the building line, the overall increase in landscaping, and the picket fence, has the cumulative effect of reducing the visual impact of the paved driveway and creates an acceptable street presentation that is appropriate for the Bourrool Lane streetscape.

Residential amenity and safety

  1. The Council’s contention with respect to residential amenity was largely based on non-compliance with provisions in the Apartment Design Guide (“ADG”). The evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown is that the proposal is now compliant with the ADG, save for the room depths of a number of apartments (Units 101, 201, 301, 403, 404) exceeding the maximum habitable room depths of 8m from a window, as specified within the Design Criteria of Objective 40-2 of the ADG. Mr Goode and Ms Treglown agree that whilst the majority of this additional area in each unit could be modified to have the function of a corridor, this would do little to achieve the intent of the objective. As such, they both agree that the layout is satisfactory notwithstanding the non-compliance.

  2. This evidence is supported by the design verification statement, which demonstrates that each of the units are larger than the minimum size required by the ADG, have balconies larger than the minimum established by the ADG, and receive some solar access between 9am and 3pm in winter. The statement also demonstrates that 75% of the units receive at least 3 hours of direct solar access at mid-winter, and 81.2% of the units are naturally cross ventilated. This exceeds the requirements of the ADG, which requires 70% and 60% respectively. The design verification statement also outlines the compliance of the design with the ADG requirements for communal open space, deep soil zone, building separation, ceiling heights, and storage areas.

  3. The Council’s contention with respect to safety and security was concerned with the area of concealment within the driveway due to the length of the driveway and its positioning below the existing ground level and the level of Bourrool Lane. The evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown is that this contention has been resolved through the activation of the main frontage with windows and balconies, the roof cover over the driveway and a security door at the edge of the driveway cover, and the additional landscaping in the position of the driveway cover. They opine that these changes remove the area of concealment within the driveway.

  4. I accept the evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown with respect to both residential amenity and safety for future occupants. With respect to the amenity for future occupants, I accept the evidence that the units are compliant with the ADG and offer a high degree of amenity, and that the layout of units 101, 201, 301, 403, 404 is satisfactory notwithstanding they exceed the 8m depth control. I accept that the design of the building is therefore consistent with design quality principle 6, which is concerned with good amenity that contributes to positive living environments and resident well-being. With respect to safety and security for future occupants, I accept the evidence that the area of concealment within the driveway has now been removed as a result of the enclosure of part of the driveway, the security access required at the entrance to that enclosure, the increased activation through windows and balconies, and the increased landscaping. As such, I accept that the design is safe and appropriate in accordance with Section 9 of Chapter 5 of the KDCP 2012.

Visual impact and view loss

  1. It is agreed that the proposed development will cause significant loss of views to Kiama lighthouse and to the land and water interface at Surf Beach from 7 Hartwell Crescent. Views are obtained from the first floor of 7 Hartwell over its rear boundary, which also forms the side boundary of the subject site. Views are obtained from a standing position on the rear balcony and in the rear living room, and to a lesser extent from a seated position in the living room. The views are partly obstructed by vegetation and the existing dwelling on the subject site, so that the best views are obtained at the extreme western end of the rear balcony. The living room does not have views of the locally iconic Kiama Lighthouse but has views to the land and water interface of Surf Beach, whereas there are views of the lighthouse (but not of Surf Beach) from the balcony adjacent to the kitchen. It is agreed by Mr Goode and Ms Treglown that the view loss that will be experienced by 7 Hartwell as a result of the proposed development is significant, as the views currently experienced will be totally lost. This is of significant concern to the owner of 7 Hartwell Crescent, Mr McAuley, who says that this is his family home and has been since it was built in 1967 by his parents, long-time residents of Kiama since the 1920s.

  2. In assessing the reasonableness of this impact, consistent with the fourth step of the view sharing principles in Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140, Mr Goode points out that the development complies with all planning controls, and that site analysis and design considerations (shown in A-DA-003) demonstrate that attempts have been made to address view loss concerns. His evidence is also that the stepping of the built form to address the slope of the site ensures the development has been sited to limit the visual impact of the proposal in the circumstances.

  3. Further, the evidence of Mr Goode is that the view sharing analysis (at A-DA-953) demonstrates that any building taller than the existing single storey residence would impact the current view. As such, Mr Goode opines that it is unreasonable to expect that the view to the north east over multiple properties, which are undeveloped and underdeveloped relative to their planning controls, will be preserved. Ms Treglown similarly opines that given Council’s desire to increase residential densities in the area, indicated by the R3 medium density zoning, floor space ratio of 1:1, and 11m building height control, it is unreasonable to expect views from the dwelling at 7 Hartwell Crescent to be maintained in perpetuity. As a result, Mr Goode opines that the view impact is acceptable in the circumstances and both experts agree that it is not always practical to protect existing views for all properties, especially in higher density areas such as the R3 Medium Density zone.

  4. Consistent with Tenacity Consulting v Waringah, Mr Goode and Ms Treglown agree that in the circumstances it would not be practical to protect the view to the Kiama lighthouse, and that the retention of those views could only be achieved by a built form that is not consistent with the zoning of the site. They therefore conclude that “on balance the outcome is satisfactory”.

  5. Their evidence is supported by the assessment report prepared by the council officer on the original application. That report states (at p 13):

“It is unrealistic to expect that the view to the north east over multiple properties, the closest two of which are undeveloped and underdeveloped, will be preserved. The existing view is narrow, partially obscured by existing vegetation and interrupted by existing dwellings. It would be unreasonable to expect the retention of the existing views from 7 Hartwell Crescent as any development on the adjoining properties is likely to have significant impact on views, with 2 storey development likely to fully obscure views. The proposed development largely complies with all the site controls of Kiama LEP and the requirements of Kiama DCP. The minor non-compliances with Kiama DCP do not contribute to the view loss. The proposal as presented complies with the building envelope created by the building line setbacks and height limit. The design response is considered to be appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.

Given Council's desire to increase residential densities in the area, evidenced by the R3 medium density zoning, 1:1 floor space ratio and 11m height limit, it is unreasonable to expect views from this dwelling to be maintained in perpetuity. Section 5 of this Chapter outlines controls with respect to maintaining views and vistas. It requires view sharing design principles to be incorporated into the building design were [sic] possible but acknowledges that in an urban environment it is not always possible to protect all views for all people. Furthermore exceptions to compliance with view sharing principles may be granted in areas which have been targeted for higher density developments.

Overall the proposal is considered to be a reasonable design response and this assessment has found it to be acceptable in the circumstance having regard to the guiding planning principles set down by “Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.”” (emphasis added)

  1. I accept this evidence. Firstly, consistent with the fourth step in Tenacity Consulting v Waringah, the view loss is caused by a proposal that is reasonable in the circumstances. The proposed development complies with the height and FSR development standards, as well as with the setback controls. Its built form has articulated facades on each elevation, and steps down in a manner consistent with the topography of the site. As a result, it is a complying proposal that has been designed to minimise visual impact. Secondly, there is no other design of a multi storey building that could retain views from 7 Hartwell Crescent. The only design that could retain the views is a built form that is no taller than the existing dwelling on the site. Such an outcome would be inconsistent with the planning controls for the site, which is for medium density development. Indeed, the planning controls for the site prohibit development for the purposes of dwelling houses. For these reasons, it is unreasonable to expect views from 7 Hartwell Crescent to be retained in these circumstances and on balance, the view loss is acceptable.

Excavation and earthworks

  1. The Council contended firstly (in contention 4) that the extent of cut proposed is excessive, does not relate to the topography of the site and results in a number of units being located below existing ground level, and secondly (in contention 8) that there was insufficient information to satisfy cl 6.2 (earthworks) of the KLEP 2011.

  2. With respect to the extent of the cut proposed, Mr Goode considers that the cut is not excessive as it is required to achieve the gradients required for the driveway to access basement parking, which is an agreed desirable component of the proposal. Mr Goode’s opinion is that the cut and fill is reasonable in this context as it is approximately through the middle part of the site and allows the design of the building to be stepped to follow the natural contours of the slope with natural ground being preserved around the building footprint.

  3. Mr Goode and Ms Treglown agree that the changes to the design, which include a roof over part of the driveway and alteration to Unit G01, reduces the visibility of the extent of cut on the western and eastern elevations of the building. They agree that the revised design provides a suitable outcome, based on the reconfiguration of Unit G01 and Unit 101 to reduce the amount of cut to the south western corner, thereby presenting a three-storey mass to the south western boundary.

  4. In relation to the question of whether the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of cl 6.2 of the KLEP 2011, both Mr Goode and Ms Treglown agree that this can be dealt with by a condition of consent requiring the submission of a final Construction Environmental Management Plan prior to any works commencing on site.

  5. Further, PSEC submits that the conditions of consent requiring dilapidation reports to be prepared (conditions 33, 34 and 37) also controls the excavation works and ensures that there is no interference with the amenity of adjoining properties, consistent with cl 6.2(3)(d) of the KLEP 2011.

  6. I accept the evidence that the excavation is required in order to accommodate a driveway at an acceptable gradient to access basement carparking, which is a desirable outcome for the site. I accept the opinion of both experts that the appearance of this excavation has been minimised by covering part of the driveway, providing landscaping above the cover of the driveway, and reconfiguring Unit G01 and Unit 101 to reduce the amount of cut to the south western corner.

  7. I also accept that the conditions of consent adequately address any matters of concern arising pursuant to cl 6.2(3) of the KLEP 2011, as those conditions ensure that the earthworks will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes and neighbouring uses.

Carparking

  1. A number of residents gave evidence that during peak holiday periods, there is insufficient parking to accommodate the parking demand generated by holiday letting of the properties in Bourrool Lane and surrounds, including the caravan park on the opposite side of Bourrool Road. Ms Spence gave evidence that overflow parking occurs in the road reserve beside the oval on Bourrool Road, as well as on the vacant part of the site the subject of these proceedings. Ms Spence, and other objectors, are concerned that the parking spaces provided for the development will not be sufficient to meet demand generated by holiday letting of the units, and that there will be additional problems with parking. In its contentions, the Council raised issues concerning proposed stacked parking in the basement.

  2. In considering the adequacy of car parking, I am restricted to considering only what is required under the Council’s controls, contained in the KDCP 2012. My assessment of the proposal is carried out by exercising the functions of the consent authority pursuant to s 4.15 of the EPA Act. Section 4.15(3A) of the EPA Act prevents me from requiring anything more onerous than the standards established by the KDCP 2012. It provides as follows (emphasis added):

“(3A) If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority:

(a) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards—is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development,

…”

  1. Chapter 9 of the KDCP 2012 provides that for 3 bedroom units, 2 spaces are to be provided for each unit, and 1 visitor space is to be provided for every 2 units. For the proposal, this equates to a total of 40 parking spaces that are required. Given that the number of car parking spaces proposed on the site achieves compliance with what is required under the KDCP 2012, pursuant to s 4.15(3A)(a) of the EPA Act I cannot require more onerous standards with respect to the provision of parking spaces. That is, I am required to consider that the number provided is adequate.

  2. Those spaces include some stacked spaces. Control C40 of the KDCP 2012 indicates that whilst the Council does not favour the use of stacked parking, it is prepared to consider such parking where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal:

“• will not adversely affect use of the site;

• only requires the removal of one vehicle to enable another vehicle to exit and occurs wholly within the site;

• allows for a change of use/occupancy of a building without impacting on parking needs of other tenants/users; and

• No more than 10% of parking required in a commercial development will be stacked; will be for the use of employees of the same organisation or inhabitants of the same household”

  1. The evidence of Mr Goode and Ms Treglown is that the stacked car parking arrangement is acceptable given that it is restricted to 6 spaces only, in pairs with each pair allocated to a separate unit so that the conflict points are reduced. I accept the evidence that, on this basis, the stacked parking is acceptable.

Adequacy of Bourrool Lane

  1. A number of the written submissions by objectors raised concerns with respect to the adequacy of Bourrool Lane to accommodate a development of the scale proposed. This was supported by oral evidence given on site by Ms Spence and Mr McDonald, as well as by a letter from Mr Richardson, town planner, on behalf of a number of the neighbouring residents. The inadequate width and standard of Bourrool Lane was also raised in the Council’s Statement of Facts and Contentions. The issue raised is that the characteristics of Bourrool Lane, in terms of the width of the carriageway, verge and road reserve, are not appropriate to accommodate waste collection vehicles and the volume of traffic associated with the proposed development. The concern is also that the increased traffic and lack of road reserve will cause increased conflict between pedestrians and cars, which creates a risk to pedestrian safety.

  2. Bourrool Lane is a narrow laneway with a width of only approximately 4.3m. It is bitumen sealed and has a rolled kerb along the outer side of the laneway along the site frontage and rear of the properties fronting Hartwell Crescent, and an unguttered edge on the inner side of the laneway where the dwellings front the laneway. There is no footpath on either side of the laneway, and the only road verge is on the southern side of Bourrool Lane. The laneway also has a very narrow 90 degree corner at the point where it meets the site and bends to the north east and along the site frontage. This corner is narrower than the laneway and the inner edge of the corner meets at a right angle and immediately adjoins a fence. The evidence of the neighbouring residents is that this corner is difficult to navigate and frequently the cause of vehicular damage or damage to the fence.

  3. The Council’s road design guidelines are contained in Chapter 7 of the KDCP 2012 and stipulate that an “access street”, which accommodates between 10 and 30 dwellings, should have a carriageway width of 6.5m and a verge width of 3.5m. Bourrool Lane does not comply with these guidelines, even with the addition of the passing bays.

  4. The paved area accommodating the proposal’s shared driveway, pedestrian access way and loading bay will be 12m in width at the point that it adjoins the rolled kerb of Bourrool Lane at the western corner of the bend in the lane. The driveway then leads away from that paved area with a width of 7.4m at its widest point and narrowing to a ramp of around 5.5m to enter the basement. This is pictured in Figure 4.

  1. A traffic signal system will be utilised for the ramp to avoid conflicts between opposing traffic within the basement and ramps. The evidence of Mr Wu and Mr Hollyoak is that this traffic signal system is acceptable, subject to an appropriate condition of consent that provides detail with respect to the operation of that system.

  2. The swept paths demonstrate that vehicles accessing the basement from Bourrool Lane would travel down the first 65m of Bourrool Lane, enter the corner where the lane bends, and proceed into the paved area and driveway of the site toward the basement ramp (rather than continuing out of the corner). The swept paths also demonstrate that there is sufficient room for vehicles to access the ramp in this manner even if there was a vehicle leaving the site and waiting within the widest part of the driveway adjoining the paved area. Swept paths also demonstrate that garbage collection can take place on site with sufficient space for the garbage truck to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. This means that all vehicles enter and exit the proposed development in a forward direction, and do not utilise the north eastern portion of Bourrool Lane. The updated traffic assessment report of Instructure Consulting Engineers indicates that locating the access driveway directly from the western corner of Bourrool Lane will allow the best visibility to avoid conflicts in the lane, particularly with respect to conflicts of opposing traffic at the Bourrool Lane western corner.

  3. The traffic assessment also sets out the capacity of Bourrool Lane based on the Roads and Maritime Services ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ 2002 (“RMS Guide”). The capacity is 100 vehicles per hour in a peak hour period, based on the road class of Bourrool Lane as an “Access way”. In a traffic survey conducted in peak hours, Bourrool Lane was assessed as currently carrying two-way peak hour traffic of 3 vehicles per hour and 7 vehicles per hour during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The report also demonstrates that based on the RMS Guide, the proposal will generate a net increase of 10 weekday peak hour vehicle trips. As such, this is well below the maximum capacity of Bourrool Lane. Mr Wu and Mr Hollyoak, in their joint expert report, agree that the additional trips (which they calculate to be 8 weekday peak hour trips) will not affect the environmental capacity of Bourrool Lane to any great extent.

  4. The assessment report also addresses the conflict with pedestrians. Pedestrian counts were also obtained during the traffic survey, with 5 pedestrian movements in the morning and 4 pedestrian movements in the afternoon at the Bourrool Street end of Bourrool Lane, and 6 pedestrian movements in both the morning and afternoon periods along the pedestrian access path at the end of Bourrool Lane. The evidence of Mr Wu and Mr Hollyoak is that (at p.6):

“based upon site inspections, pedestrians currently tended to walk on the road rather than the verge. Such pedestrians would experience higher traffic levels than at present (i.e. about 8 more vehicles per hour) but the nature of the road (i.e. steep/narrow) will result in cars travelling at relatively low speeds.”

  1. The assessment report also considers the characteristics of Bourrool Lane to determine whether it can accommodate a development of the scale of that proposed. In doing so, it considers that the lane is in good condition with low pedestrian volume, and that with a passing bay there is adequate space for vehicle manoeuvring. Mr Wu and Mr Hollyoak opine that the passing bay is acceptable and is not a reason to warrant refusal of the application.

  2. The resident objectors expressed concern with respect to the adequacy of the traffic survey undertaken, especially with the number of pedestrian movements observed. Ms Spence and Mr McDonald gave evidence that a number of walkers and walking groups utilise Bourrool Lane as a shortcut or safer alternative to walking along Bourrool Road, which has no pedestrian pathway.

  3. I accept the evidence presented in the traffic assessment that Bourrool Lane is adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposal, and I similarly accept the opinion of Mr Wu and Mr Hollyoak in that regard.

  4. Firstly, I accept that Bourrool Lane can accommodate the additional volume of traffic to be generated by the development. Based on the RMS Guide, it is expected to generate a net increase of 10 weekday peak hour vehicle trips, which can be accommodated by the lane, which has a capacity of 100 peak hour vehicle trips in accordance with the RMS Guide. Further, I accept the evidence that the quality of the roadway of Bourrool Lane is sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic.

  5. Secondly, the additional traffic generated by the development will only travel between Bourrool Road and the driveway of the proposal. I accept that the sight lines along that first section of Bourrool Lane to and from the driveway, together with the passing bay, will allow vehicle manoeuvring to be managed despite the narrow width of the laneway. As such, increased conflict will only occur in the first portion of the laneway where there is a passing bay and where there are some sight lines between the driveway and the entrance to the laneway.

  6. Thirdly, although the 90 degree turn in the laneway is quite narrow and difficult to navigate in a vehicle, there is nothing about this development that makes that turn worse, and vehicles accessing the proposed development will not need to navigate that corner. Rather, I accept the submission of PSEC that putting the driveway on the corner will actually serve to benefit the lane by improving lines of sight and creating a paved area on the verge adjacent to the corner.

  7. Fourthly, I do not accept that conflicts with pedestrians will be of sufficient frequency to warrant refusal. The survey demonstrated that when peak traffic volume is expected, during the peak hours, only 5 pedestrian movements in the morning and 4 pedestrian movements in the afternoon were observed at the Bourrool Road end of the lane, where vehicle movements for the development will occur. This is not of sufficient frequency to warrant refusal, and I accept the evidence that given the narrowness of the lane, vehicles will manoeuvre the laneway at a slow speed. Further, the pedestrian pathway to be constructed along Bourrool Road (as part of the proposed plans for the development) will encourage pedestrian traffic from walking groups and walkers to continue along Bourrool Road rather than use the laneway.

  8. Fifthly, the swept paths demonstrate that a garbage truck can access the site and change direction within the site so as to leave in a forward direction.

  9. Sixthly, I accept that the traffic signal system within the site will avoid conflicts of vehicles on the ramps within the site.

  10. Finally, the mere fact that Bourrool Lane does not meet the numerical requirements for an access street in Chapter 7 of the KDCP 2012 does not warrant refusal of the proposal. These requirements are for developments for the subdivision of land, and the objective of Chapter 7 is to “provide Council’s detailed requirements for urban residential subdivision development and subdivision in rural areas”. As such, the chapter does not strictly apply to the present application, particularly insofar as it sets design requirements for roads. Further, the stated objectives of the design features are as follows:

“• To provide a defined hierarchy of roads, in order to provide an acceptable level of access, safety and convenience for all road users.

• To ensure that the design features of each residential road within a subdivision reflects the role of the road within the overall road network.

• To provide an acceptable level of access, safety and convenience for all road users within existing urban areas and new release areas, whilst ensuring acceptable levels of amenity and minimising traffic management issues in the particular locality.

• To provide appropriate road access for larger and special purpose vehicles including garbage and recycling trucks, fire trucks, delivery trucks etc”

  1. The first two stated objectives clearly concern the design of roads within a new subdivision, and therefore do not apply to this development application. I am satisfied that the second two stated objectives are met based on the evidence above that Bourrool Lane can accommodate garbage vehicles and the additional traffic generated by the proposal.

Privacy

  1. Another concern raised by one of the resident objectors was a loss of privacy arising from windows and balconies facing the rear private open space and garden of 7 Hartwell Crescent. I do not accept that this warrants refusal of the application. The balconies and windows from living areas that face 7 Hartwell have privacy screens preventing overlooking, and the windows from the ensuites are highlight windows. The remaining windows that could cause overlooking are from bedrooms, which I accept are considered to be of low intensity in use and will be screened in part by the landscaping along the boundary that adjoins 7 Hartwell Crescent.

Waste Management

  1. Another concern raised on behalf of the objectors relates to whether there is adequate provision for waste management. I accept that there is adequate waste management. All waste is to be managed and collected on the site, and the bin storage area complies with the minimum 6m setback control.

Outcome of the appeal

  1. As set out above, I find that the development is an appropriate response to the site’s constraints, the applicable controls, and its location and context. I have considered the matters required in cl 5.5(2) of the KLEP 2011 and I am satisfied of the matters required by cl 5.5(3). In accordance with cl 30 of SEPP 65, I am also satisfied that adequate regard has been given to the ADG and the design quality principles. Given that the other planning controls of the KLEP 2011 and the KDCP 2012 are met, there is no basis to refuse the development application and it is granted accordingly in accordance with the consent orders signed by the parties and subject to the conditions of consent as agreed between the parties.

  2. The Court orders that:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 10.2016.231.1 and rely upon the following amended plans:

Plan No.

Plan Name

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

ST01

Basement Drainage Plan

E

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST02

Basement Drainage Detail

E

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST03

Ground Floor Drainage Plan

E

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST04

Level 1 Drainage Plan

G

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST05

Level 2 Drainage Plan

G

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST06

Site Drainage Plan

E

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST07

Roof Drainage Plan

E

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST08

Stormwater Drainage Detail

E

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST09

Catchment Map and MUSIC Model Result

C

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST10

Spel Stormsack Detail

E

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST11

Long-Section Along Inside Edge of Driveway

B

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST12

Long-Section Along Inside of Access Ramp

B

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

ST13

Stormwater Drainage Detail

B

InStructure Consulting Engineers

01/03/18

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No. 10.2016.231.1 for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and the construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 16 x 3 bedroom units over one and a half levels of basement car parking, with a total of 40 car parking spaces (8 visitor and 32 residential, 4 of which are accessible), on the land legally described as Lot 1 DP 309656, Lot 1 DP 176929, Lot 2 DP 774101 and Lot 3 DP 774101 with a street address of 15-17 Bourrool Lane, Kiama, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

  3. No orders as to costs.

  4. Exhibits 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 are returned.

________________

Commissioner Gray

Annexure A (376 KB, pdf)

**********

Decision last updated: 27 September 2018

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

8

Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140