Stargold Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council

[2004] NSWLEC 504

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Stargold Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2004] NSWLEC 504
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Stargold Pty Ltd RESPONDENT North Sydney Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10949 of 2003
CORAM:	Hussey C
KEY ISSUES:	Development Application :- Alterations and extensions
LEGISLATION CITED:	State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	08/04/2004
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	04/08/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Ms F Sinclair, barrister SOLICITORS Phillip Yip and Associates RESPONDENT Mr N Ogden, solicitor SOLICITORS Mallesons Stephen Jaques

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

8 April 2004

10949 of 2003 Stargold Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council

JUDGMENT

1 This matter came before the Court via an appeal against council’s refusal of a development application for alterations and extensions, including a garage to an existing apartment building at 13 Montpelier Street, Neutral Bay.

2 Subsequently the parties were directed to confer and that resulted in a joint planning report, arising from which were amended plans addressing the outstanding issues. Those amended plans then have been considered by council’s planner and a detailed assessment has been undertaken in (Exhibit 3), resulting in a recommendation for approval and this was accepted by council, which now agrees to the consent orders.

3 Having considered the detailed assessment report, I note that the application requires consideration of four development standards which were dealt with by way of SEPP 1 objections and they related to building height plane, building setbacks, landscape area requirements for apartment buildings and apartment building revisions.

4 The assessment report examines the development standard objectives in the context of the existing older style apartment building, which in its current state has some non-compliances, particularly with its height. Also it takes into account the rock shelf, which has some heritage significance. Consequently the amended position of the garage now substantially retains this, but this then results in some reduction in the landscape area.

5 In examining the breach in the non-compliance with this numeric standard, the assessment report contains the following comments are from the consultant planner:
The proposed amendment successfully reduces the impact of the proposed garage upon the streetscape and existing rock outcrop on the site which is located near the northern boundary and which was to be completely excavated. The amended design allows for the provision of extensive landscaping in the front yard area in the form of a series of planter beds and boxes, planter box provided over the garage allows for some trailing of ground covers over the edge to soften the structure and for the planting of a tree and with the stepping down of a planter box to the street frontage minimises the bulk of the garage structure.
6 Also council’s landscape architect says that:
I believe that the proposed new landscaping will result in a significant improvement to the quality of the existing landscaping. Furthermore within two to three years any lost amenity values will be adequately redressed.

7 This was conditional on the installation of an irrigation system and reference to the landscape plans shows that is included in the specification for landscaping. Accordingly, the assessment report concludes that in the circumstances, the objectives of the development standards are achieved and therefore the SEPP 1 objections are supported.

8 This detailed assessment report also comprehensively deals with the other relevant matters for consideration which are also found to be acceptable.

9 So that having considered the evidence before the Court, I accept the agreed conclusion by the planning experts that the SEPP 1 objections are made out and well founded. I also note that both the original and amended development application were notified. That initially resulted in the submission of one objection on the first application from a neighbouring property owner regarding privacy loss. However, the amended plans have addressed this to an acceptable standard for council and no further objections have been lodged, even though the objectors were notified of today’s hearing.

10 So that having considered the evidence before the Court, particularly the detailed planning assessment in Exhibit 3, I consider the consent orders should be made.

11 The consent orders are:

1. The appeal in respect of 13 Montpelier Street, Neutral Bay, is upheld.
2. The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objections in respect of North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2001 ;
a) Clause 18 – Building Height Plane;
b) Clause 19 – Building Setbacks;
c) Clause 20 – Landscaped Area; and
d) Clause 26 – Apartment Building Revision,
are allowed.
3. The Development Application No. 608/02 for proposed alterations and additions to an existing residential apartment building including a new garage at street level, access stairs, addition of balconies and a strata subdivision amendment is approved subject to the conditions contained in consent annexure “A”.
4. The exhibits are returned except for Exhibits 1, 3, A and B.

___________________
R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
rjs