Romanin v Mosman Municipal Council
[2004] NSWLEC 641
•11/11/2004
Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Romanin v Mosman Municipal Council [2004] NSWLEC 641 PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Frank Romanin
Mosman Municipal CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 10582 of 2004 CORAM: Bly C KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Heritage - bulk and scale - privacy - overshadowing LEGISLATION CITED: Development Control Plan CASES CITED: Parsonage v Ku-ring-gai Council DATES OF HEARING: 11/11/2004 EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :11/11/2004 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr A J J Thompson, barristerRESPONDENT
Ms J A Walsh, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Pike Pike & Fenwick
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALESBly C
11 November 2004
JUDGMENT10582 of 2004 Frank Romanin v Mosman Municipal Council
1 This appeal involving an on-site hearing relates to development application number 8.2003.369.1 which seeks consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house at 11 Upper Avenue Road, Mosman. More particularly the proposal involves: the demolition of an existing garage and the erection of a new replacement garage with access off the rear lane; a new family room and laundry; a first-floor extension with a bedroom and bathroom; and a rear facing balcony. Additional site landscaping is also proposed
2 The rectangular shaped site has a frontage of 6.95 metres and an area of 316 square metres. It has a rear boundary to Crux Lane.
3 The following statutory controls are relevantly applicable to the application:
- · Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 ("the LEP")
· Mosman Residential Development Control Plan ("the DCP")
4 The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under the LEP and in this zone the proposal is permissible with development consent. The site is also situated in a foreshore scenic protection area.
5 The LEP contains development standards dealing with building height, wall height, number of storeys, floor space ratio and landscaped area. The proposal complies with all of these development standards.
6 The DCP contains a side setback requirement of 1.5 metres for the two-storey component of the building, and the proposal does not comply with this requirement, having a set back of 1.2 metres.
7 The application was advertised and objections were received from the two adjoining neighbours at No 9 and No 13 Upper Avenue Road. Concerns expressed by these neighbours mainly involve loss of amenity, resulting particularly from overshadowing, loss of privacy and excessive bulk and scale.
8 Despite a council officer's report recommending conditional approval the application was refused by the council on 8 March 2004.
9 The council and the applicant have now reached a position whereby consent orders can be entered into and have agreed to a set of conditions to go with those orders. The matters for determination by the Court arise principally in relation to the neighbour’s objection from No. 9 - Mrs Toomey.
10 On behalf of Mrs Toomey, Dr Berveling the told the Court that there were four matters of concern to his client and those matters have been detailed in the report of Mr Liddy, an architect. These concerns were elaborated on by Mr Liddy, whilst the Court inspected the subject property and No. 9.
11 The issues arising come under four headings:
· Heritage,
· bulk and scale,
· privacy and
· overshadowing.
12 In relation to the heritage question, I note that the site is situated in a conservation area. In this context, expert evidence was provided by Mr M Robinson, a Court appointed architect/town planner and heritage specialist.
13 In his report Mr Liddy explained that the proposal does not respect the scale or the proportions of either the host building or of the adjoining buildings of almost identical, original configuration. He was also concerned that the proposal relies on a significant non-compliance with the side boundary setback requirement. These matters are indicative of an inappropriate addition in terms of bulk and scale. He also considered the report of Mr Robinson, the Court appointed heritage expert, disagreeing with him because the appearance of the rear of this building in its group of four would be unsatisfactory, resulting from radical alterations to an existing compatible configuration of almost identical gables and skillion roofs in alignment.
14 Mr Robinson in his report referred to the Mosman Heritage Review carried out for the council in 1996. In that review the subject existing building was identified as having a high degree of intactness, which contributes to the character of the area. He pointed out that, in the report the objective for development control for buildings such as this, is to maintain heritage characteristics and streetscape intactness. He acknowledged that the house has a very intact street façade and was comforted by the fact that this façade is to be retained and that the proposed extension would be little if at all seen in the streetscape context.
15 Dealing with the alterations and extensions to the rear, he expressed some concern similar to that expressed by Mr Liddy. However, he recognised that in its present form the extensions would not dominate or overwhelm the cottage and subject to changes to the transverse gable roof which have now been agreed to, he saw no reason sufficient to warrant rejection of the application. He was of the opinion that the proposal would have little impact on the significance of the conservation area as a whole.
16 In relation to the conservation area consideration, I am inclined to accept the evidence of Mr Robinson particularly taking into account his heritage expertise over that of Mr Liddy. The fact of the protection of the streetscape is an important consideration in my being able to conclude that the proposal would not adversely affect the conservation area to any significant degree.
17 Whilst Mr Liddy’s concerns are, in relation to the style of the building at the rear are to some degree reasonable, it is appropriate for the Court to take into consideration the fact that none of the planning controls especially the DCP require any particular constraint in terms of building bulk or form at the rear. Taking into account the compliance with the floor space ratio and building height and notwithstanding the non-compliance with the side setback requirements, I agree with Mr Robinson that this proposal would not have such an impact on the conservation area as would warrant its rejection.
18 Considering next the bulk and scale issue, I first note that in s 4.2 of the DCP which deals with siting and scale, there are a number of objectives which relate to matters such as spatial relief between buildings, privacy and access to sunlight. I also refer to objective 6, which is “to have a scale of development which is not excessive and is consistent with the existing or desired future character of the area”.
19 In his report Mr Liddy explains that the non-compliances with the side boundary setback results in a building of a bulk and scale not foreseen under the provisions of the LEP and the DCP resulting, in an incompatible addition of excessive bulk.
20 In his report Mr Moody, the Court appointed town planner, also deals with the matter of bulk and scale emphasising the fact that the proposal complies with the floor space ratio development standard of 0.55:1 and also complies with the height requirements in the DCP.
21 In referring to the floor space ratio requirement in cl 14 of the LEP he notes that this development standard is to control the scale of development so that it is compatible with housing characteristics of the locality and to minimise the effects of bulk and scale. He also pointed out that the maximum building and wall heights of the proposal comply with the provisions of cl 13 of the LEP, being significantly below the allowable standards. He accepted that the building will be observable from neighbouring properties, but taking into account the compliance with the relevant development standards, the scale and appearance of the proposed development will be in keeping with the street and neighbourhood character and will achieve the desired future character objectives in the DCP.
22 In principle I agree with Mr Moody but recognise the concerns of Mr Liddy about the non-compliance with the side setbacks. I have given this requirement much thought but I do not accept that strict compliance would to any significant degree change the bulk and scale of the building. The bulk and scale of a re-designed building which complies not only with the floor space ratio and the height controls but also with the setbacks does not suggest to me that a different scheme would be so much better than the proposal as to warrant refusal of this application.
23 I accept, in terms of bulk and scale that the proposal would not be excessive nor would it be inconsistent with what the future character of this area is likely to be also taking into account the development standards in the LEP and the other standards in the DCP.
24 Dealing next with overshadowing, I note that the DCP requires the siting of buildings to maximise sunlight particularly to living areas and principal areas of open space and that relevantly, main ground level private open space of neighbouring buildings should not have sunlight reduced to less than 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June. I accept the evidence of Mr Moody that this requirement is met. There also seemed to be little doubt that the proposal would also comply with the AMCORD requirement of 3 hours of sunlight at the same time.
25 Mr Liddy was nevertheless concerned that the additional overshadowing from the development will adversely affect the outdoor living areas at No. 9. He particularly referred to the dining and seating area at the rear. However, I accept the overshadowing of this dining and seating area has been resolved by the lowering of the proposed garage.
26 In Parsonage v Ku-ring-gai Council 2004 [NSWLEC] 34, the Senior Commissioner enunciated a number of principles including the principle that that the amount of sunlight lost should be taken into account as well as the amount of sunlight retained. In terms of solar access generally I taken into account the fact that this proposal will result in the loss of some sunlight to the rear yard of No. 9 but I do not accept that this is sufficient to be determinative of the application.
27 Mr Liddy, again in referring to the non-compliance with the side setback requirement was of the opinion that compliance with this requirement would result in a lesser overshadowing of No. 9. However having considered the shadow diagrams in some detail I do not accept that any change that might result from a design which complied not only with the side setbacks but also with the floor space ratio and height controls would be very different to what is now proposed.
28 In the circumstances I accept the evidence of Mr Moody that because the level of solar access is well in excess of council's requirement and taking also into account the recent adjustment to the height of the garage that solar access is not a determinative issue.
29 In relation to privacy, Mr Liddy was concerned that the proposed first floor balcony off the main bedroom will allow the opportunity for overlooking of the existing private open space of No. 9. He recognised that the balcony is off a bedroom but still believed that the resulting opportunities for overlooking would be unreasonable.
30 Mr Moody disagreed with Mr Liddy for a number of reasons. The balcony is quite small and being associated with the bedroom, it is unlikely to create unreasonable adverse overlooking, an approach utilised in AMCORD. He also noted that the balcony is partially recessed and this somewhat reduces overlooking opportunities. Other opportunities for overlooking particularly from other windows have been resolved by the provision of fixed obscure glazing.
31 In s 5.6 of the DCP the guidelines require that above ground balconies, terraces, decks, verandas and outdoor spaces must not directly overlook rooms and private landscaped area of adjoining properties unless screening can mitigate overlooking. The proposal clearly fails to meet this requirement. It also fails to meet similar requirement where opportunities might be available for overlooking from habitable room windows.
32 The DCP requirement for privacy is not an absolute requirement, being a guideline which must be taken into consideration. The flexibility, which can be applied to this requirement, is to be found in the Introductory Explanation in the DCP, noting that in an urban area such as Mosman, absolute levels of privacy cannot be achieved.
33 So the question that arises here is whether the extent of overlooking is, in the circumstances of this case, unreasonable. In this regard I again accept the evidence of Mr Moody that it is not. The fact that the overlooking opportunities are of some significance is not the determinative aspect in this case. What is determinative is the likely use of the balcony, particularly its association with a bedroom and being some distance including one level from the principal living areas in the dwelling. This indicates the likely infrequent use of the balcony. Taking also into account the size of the balcony this indicates that its use for recreational purposes beyond any use associated with the bedroom is unlikely. I also take into account the existence of some intervening vegetation and the requirement for the preparation of the landscape plan which in its terms requires attention be given to privacy screening.
34 It is therefore the decision of the Court that by consent:
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development application No 8.2003.369.1 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house at No. 11 Upper Avenue Road, Mosman, is determined by the granting of development consent subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’ hereto.
3. Exhibits A and 7 are retained.
Commissioner of the Court___________________
rjs
Annexure “A”
Conditions of Development Consent
F rank Romanin v Mosman Municipal Council
Premises: 11 Upper Avenue Road, Mosman
1. The development must be carried out in accordance with the following stamped approved plans and documentation, except where amended by later conditions of consent:
Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by Site Survey Ref 02006 7 Feb 2002 A c Gilbert & Co Pty Ltd Surveyors Dwg Nos.DA01B – DA06B September 2004 Urbanistes Pty Ltd
2. Two copies of Architectural and Structural Engineer’s plans must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The structural engineering plans must be signed by a qualified practicing Structural Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field.
- The plans are to incorporate and note any changes from the approved development application plans as required by conditions of this consent.
For applications involving alterations and additions, one set of plans should be coloured which indicate the extent of new works.
Amended Plans
3. The width of traverse roof over the first floor en suite and walk in wardrobe shall be reduced to the minimum needed to cover the rooms and the ridge height reduced accordingly in accordance with the sketch plan which is Exhibit 7.
4. The walls of the proposed garage must have a height of no greater than 2.7 metres and the top of the ridge shall have a height no greater than RL 51.22.
5A. All services including drainage are to be wholly within the boundaries of No 11 Upper Avenue Road. All building works are to be wholly within the boundaries of No 11 Upper Avenue Road. A Survey Certificate certifying compliance with this condition shall be provided upon completion of the works.
5B. Both the upper and lower panes of the window to the upstairs ensuite bathroom shall be of obscure glass. The lower pane shall be fixed.
6. To assist with an assessment of claims for the refund of the security deposit over Council’s property, a dilapidation report must be submitted. The report must document and provide photographs that clearly depict any existing damage to the road, kerb, gutter, footpath, driveways, street trees, street signs or any other Council assets in the vicinity of the development. Any damage not shown in this manner will be assumed to have been caused as a result of the site works undertaken and must either be rectified at the applicant’s expense or compensated by deduction from the security deposit.
7. The applicant shall supply Council with a first dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at Nos 9 and 13 Upper Avenue Road prior to commencement of any site works which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made readily available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works. A second dilapidation report shall be supplied by the applicant in respect of these properties following completion of site works. The costs associated with both reports shall be borne by the applicant.
8. The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. The approved plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at then see Building & Renovating under the heading Building & Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.
- The consent authority or a private accredited certifier must ensure that a Quick check agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the issue of any Construction Certificate.
9. In accordance with Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, the applicant shall pay a long service levy at the prescribed rate of 0.2% of the total cost of the work to either the Long Service Payments Corporation or Mosman Municipal Council for any work costing $25,000 or more.
10. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $1,500.00 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property. A request for a refund of unused funds may be made following the completion of works and an inspection of the property by Council.
11. A Landscape Plan prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect or Landscape Consultant to a scale of 1:100 and conforming to Council's Residential Development Control Plan and relevant conditions of this Consent, must be submitted to Council's or the Accredited Certifier's satisfaction with the Construction Certificate.
- The Plan must include the location of all existing and proposed landscape features and delineate trees to be retained, removed or transplanted. The Plan must show all existing and proposed finished ground levels and a detailed planting schedule which includes species listed by botanical and common names, quantities of each species, pot sizes and the estimated size of the plant at maturity. Consideration within the design should be given to the scale of the planting in proportion to the development, consistency with the landscape character of the area and the views, solar access and privacy of the neighbouring developments.
12. In accordance with Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, no site works (including building works, demolition, excavation or the removal of vegetation) are to commence until:
- (i) the Construction Certificate has been issued;
(ii) the person benefiting from the consent has appointed a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) by way of completing Form 7A (attached at the end of the consent);
(iii) in instances where Council is not the PCA, the PCA has, no later than 2 days before the building work commences, notified Council of his or her appointment by way of forwarding a completed copy of Form 7A and notified the person benefiting from the consent of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work by way of completing Form 7B (attached at the end of this consent). In instances where Council is the PCA, Council has completed Form 7B if necessary and forwarded it to the person benefiting from the consent.
(iv) the person benefiting from the consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, has (by way of completing Form 7C):
· appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the holder of a contractor licence if any residential building work is involved; and
· notified the PCA of any such appointment; and
· unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal contractor of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work; and
13. In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, there shall be such a contract in force. Evidence in the form of a copy of the contract must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any site works.
- If the work is to be undertaken by an owner-builder, a copy of the owner-builder permit issued under the Home Building Act 1989 must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.
14. If site or building works will:
- · cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or unsafe; or
· involve the enclosure of a public place; or
· have the potential to damage adjoining private land by way of falling objects
- then a temporary hoarding, fence or awning must be erected between the work site and the adjoining area. Any such hoarding, fence or awning must be removed when the work has been completed. The fence must be constructed prior to the commencement of works and where adjoining public land shall be covered in cyclone wire mesh to discourage the fixing of posters or graffiti.
15. Temporary sedimentation and erosion controls shall be constructed prior to commencement of any site works in order to prevent the discharge of sediment from the site. The controls shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Department of Conservation and Land Management's "Urban Erosion and Sediment Control" manual. Note: this document is now available from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.
16. In accordance with Section 95(1) of the Act, this consent shall lapse unless work has physically commenced on the land within 5 years from the date of the consent or in instances where no work is required, the use has commenced within 5 years from the date of the consent.
17. Public liability insurance to the value of $5,000,000 must be taken out by the builder or owner to protect any person, firm or company from injury, loss or damage sustained as a consequence of the carrying out of site works, including all excavation, demolition and construction works. A copy of the policy must be provided to Council or the Accredited Certifier.
18. All works are to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.
19. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 2601-2001: The Demolition of Structures.
20. For safety reasons, a sign shall be erected in a prominent position on the premises during demolition or building works stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited and showing the name of the builder or other person in control of the premises and a telephone number at which that person may be contacted during and outside work hours.
- The sign must be removed when the demolition or building work has been completed. This condition does not apply to building work carried out inside an existing building or building work carried out on premises that will be occupied continuously (both during and outside working hours) while the work is being carried out.
21. In order to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties, audible site works shall be restricted to between 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturday. Inaudible site works may also take place between 7.00am and 8.00am on Saturdays. No site works shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.
- Unless otherwise approved within a Construction Traffic Management Plan, construction vehicles, machinery, goods or materials shall not be delivered to the site outside the approved hours of site works.
22. Sedimentation and erosion controls must be effectively maintained at all times during the course of construction and shall not be removed until the site has been stabilised or landscaped to the Principal Certifying Authority’s satisfaction.
23. The land and adjoining areas shall be kept in a clean and tidy condition at all times. No construction vehicles, building materials, waste, machinery or related matter shall be stored on the road or footpath for the duration of works unless separate approval has been obtained from Council’s Traffic Committee for the establishment of a Construction Zone. Under no circumstances will any person be allowed to mix or dispose of concrete, mortar or slurry within Council property.
24. Stormwater shall be directed to the street gutter. All drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s “Guidelines For Stormwater Drainage Systems”.
25. All natural landscape features including trees and other vegetation, natural rock outcrops, soil and watercourses shall remain undisturbed except where affected by necessary works detailed on approved plans.
26. All street trees and trees on private property that are protected under Mosman Council’s Tree Preservation Order 2003, shall be retained except where Council's prior written consent has been obtained, or where after approval of the relevant Construction Certificate, trees stand within the envelope of approved buildings or within the alignment of approved permanent paved vehicular access roads and parking areas.
27. To minimise domestic water consumption, water conservation devices with an AAA rating must be used, including low flow tap and shower head roses, dual flush toilets and six litre/minute flow regulators in all bathroom basins, kitchen and laundry sinks.
28. This consent does not authorise the carrying out of any of the following activities which require the separate approval of Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993:
· Place a waste storage container in a public place
· Swing or hoist goods across or over any part of a public road by means of a lift, hoist or tackle projecting over the footway
- Note: A person who fails to obtain an approval or who carries out an activity otherwise than in accordance with an approval is guilty of an offence under Sections 626 and 627 of the Local Government Act 1993 .
Approved Plans
29. A copy of the stamped approved plans must be kept on site for the duration of site works and be made available upon request to either the Principal Certifying Authority or an officer of the Council.
30. To ensure building works are carried out properly and in accordance with the conditions of this consent, with the Building Code of Australia and or with relevant Australian Standards, the following critical stage inspections are to be carried out:
· at the commencement of the building work;
· after excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings;
· prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element;
· prior to covering of the framework for any floor, wall, roof or other building element;
· prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas;
· prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections;
· fire separation if the building is within 900mm of the property boundary prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building;
· smoke alarms prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; and
· final inspection after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building.
The critical stage inspections must be carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority PCA, or if the PCA agrees, by another certifying authority excepting the final inspection which must be carried out by the PCA.
If you intend engaging Council to undertake the inspections, please telephone the area Building Surveyor or Council’s Case Officer on 9978 4044 to arrange a suitable time.Notes: Records of the above critical stage inspections will be required to be submitted prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate – see later conditions of consent.
Prior To The Release Of The Occupation Certificate
The following conditions must be satisfied prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.
Record of Inspections Carried Out
31. In accordance with clause 162B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the certifying authority responsible for critical stage inspections must make a record of each inspection as soon as practicable after it has been carried out. Where Council is not the PCA, the PCA is to forward a copy of all records to Council.
The record must include details of:
- · the development application and construction certificate number;
· the address of the property at which the inspection was carried out;
· the type of inspection;
· the date on which it was carried out;
· the name and accreditation number of the certifying authority by whom the inspection was carried out; and
· whether or not the inspection was satisfactory in the opinion of the certifying authority who carried it out.
Landscape Completion
32. To ensure landscaping works are properly completed, the landscape designer shall provide a compliance certificate to the Principal Certifying Authority certifying that landscaping has been implemented in accordance with the approved landscape plan. Where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of the certificate must be provided for Council’s records.
Prior To Occupation
The following condition must be satisfied prior to occupation of the development.
Compliance Certificates and Inspection Records
33. Where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of any compliance certificates and or records of inspections received by the PCA shall be forwarded to Council prior to occupation or commencement of the use.
34. Occupation or use, either in part or full, shall not take place until an Occupation Certificate has been issued. The Occupation Certificate must not be issued unless the building is suitable for occupation or use in accordance with its classification under the Building Code of Australia and until all preceding conditions of this consent have been complied with.
- Where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of the Occupation Certificate together with registration fee must be provided to Council.
The following conditions must be satisfied during occupation or use of the development.
35. To prevent the spread of undesirable and invasive species and to ensure the preservation of urban bushland, all noxious weeds shall be removed and continually suppressed. A list of noxious weeds may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at and then under “Environment” and “Trees and Weeds”.
The following points are issued as advice to the applicant. They do not form conditions of the Notice of Determination.
- (i) Headings such as “Prior To The Release Of The Construction Certificate” together with bolded notes that immediately follow, form part of this Notice of Determination. Conditions under the respective headings shall be read in the context of the heading and note.
(ii) Section 82A of the Act provides for an applicant to request Council to review its determination excepting applications made on behalf of the Crown or applications in respect of designated development, integrated development or a complying development certificate. The request for review must be made within 12 months of the date of determination or prior to appeal being heard by the Land and Environment Court. A decision on a review may not be further reviewed under section 82A.
(iii) If you are unsatisfied with this determination, Section 97 of the Act gives you the right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 12 months of the determination date.
(iv) A public inquiry by a Commission of Inquiry was not held under Section 119 of the Act.
(v) Other public authorities may have separate requirements and should be consulted in the following respects:
- · Australia Post for the positioning and dimensions of mail boxes in new commercial and residential developments;
· AGL Sydney Limited for any change or alteration to gas line infrastructure;
· Energy Australia for any change or alteration to electricity infrastructure or encroachment within transmission line easements;
· Telstra, Optus or other telecommunication carriers for access to their telecommunications infrastructure.
(vii) Failure to comply with the relevant provisions of the Act and/or the conditions of this consent may result in the serving of penalty notices or legal action through the Land and Environment Court.
(viii) In accordance with section 81A of the Act, the person benefiting from this consent is notified that if Council is engaged as the Principal Certifying Authority, critical stage inspections to be carried out will include those listed under the sub-heading “Critical Stage Inspections” in this consent. If additional inspections are required, further notice will be provided.
(ix) All references to "the Act" under this consent relate to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
_____________
T A Bly
Commissioner of the Court
rjs
0
0
1