Steve Nolan Constructions Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2010] NSWLEC 1362



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Steve Nolan Constructions Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2010] NSWLEC 1362
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Steve Nolan Constructions Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Ku-ring-gai Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10939 of 2010
CORAM: Tuor C
KEY ISSUES: CONSENT ORDERS - DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION :- objectors concerns
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
DATES OF HEARING: 23 December 2010
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 23 December 2010
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr G McKee (Solicitor)
SOLICITOR
McKees Legal Solutions

RESPONDENT
Ms K Morton (Solicitor)
SOLICITOR
Sparke Helmore Lawyers


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Tuor C

      23 December 2010

      10939 of 2010 Steve Nolan Constructions Pty Ltd -v-
      Ku-ring-gai Council
      This determination was given extemporaneously
      and has been edited prior to publication
      JUDGMENT

1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal under s96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend a development application to construct a residential flat building at 26 - 30 Marian Street, Killara. The proposal seeks to delete the approved masonry balustrades on the balconies and replace them with glazed balustrades. The issues in dispute between the parties have been resolved and the parties are seeking consent orders from the Court.

2 The issues that remain are those raised by objectors. A councillor spoke on behalf of the residents and raised concerns in relation to the heritage context of the proposal and the inappropriateness of the glazing rather than masonry. She also raised issues in relation to overlooking of the property on the other side of Marion Street and the characteristics of glazing in terms of noise and thermal performance. She was also concerned that the units had been sold with masonry balustrades and that the change to glazing may result in future issues for council.

3 Mr McKee, for the applicant, addressed the concerns raised by the objectors. He referred to the agreement between the heritage experts and the planning experts that the proposed glazing of the balconies was acceptable within the heritage context of the site. In particular, the use of materials, coloured brickwork and banding are referenced from nearby heritage buildings in the street. In the absence of any heritage evidence to the contrary, I accept that the proposal will have an acceptable heritage impact.

4 In relation to overlooking of the opposite property, the balconies are opaque glazing and are set back a significant distance with intervening vegetation. I accept that the use of glazing rather than masonry will not result in unreasonable privacy impacts on nearby properties.

5 Council did not raise issues of noise and thermal performance of glazing in comparison to masonry. Due to the oblique angle and the distance of the balconies from the Pacific Highway it would be unlikely that there would be any unacceptable noise impacts. There is no evidence before the Court that glazing would be unacceptable or that its acoustic or thermal performance is significantly inferior to masonry to warrant refusal of the application.

6 In relation to the sale of the units with masonry balconies, the contractual arrangements between the owner of the property and the purchasers are not a relevant matter for consideration by the Court.

7 For these reasons, I accept that the issues between the parties have been resolved and that the consent orders sought by the parties may be granted.

Orders

8 The Court orders by consent that:

1 The appeal is upheld.


2 The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans:

    • S-01 – Ground Floor and Site Plan, Revision A, prepared by SD Masterplan, dated 08/12/2010,
    • Drawing No. S-02 – Typical Floor Plan, Revision A, prepared by SD Masterplan dated 08/12/2010
    • Drawing No. S-06 – North Elevations, Revision A, prepared by SD Masterplan dated 08/12/2010
    • Drawing No. S-07 – East Elevations, Revision A, prepared by SD Masterplan dated 08/12/2010
    • Drawing No. S-08 – South Elevations, Revision A, prepared by SD Masterplan dated 08/12/2010
    • Drawing No. S-09 – West Elevations, Revision A, prepared by SD Masterplan dated 08/12/2010
    • Drawing No. SK100 – Balustrade Details to Comply with BCA

3 The Modification Application No.MOD0180/10 lodged pursuant to section 96(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in relation to Lot 28 DP 1153757, being 26-30 Marian Street, Killara, is approved subject to condition of consent contained in Annexure “A”.


4 The exhibits, except Exhibits 2, 4 and A, are returned.

      ___________________
          Annelise Tuor
          Commissioner of the Court
Details
AGLC
Steve Nolan Constructions Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2010] NSWLEC 1362
Case
[2010] NSWLEC 1362
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steve Nolan Constructions Pty Limited has appealed against a decision of the Ku-ring-gai Council, seeking to amend a development application for a residential flat building at 26-30 Marian Street, Killara. The proposed modification seeks to change the approved masonry balustrades on the balconies to glazed balustrades. Objectors to the proposal raised concerns about the heritage context of the site, the appropriateness of the glazing, overlooking issues, noise and thermal performance, and the sale of units with masonry balconies. The case was heard and determined by Commissioner Tuor of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales on 23 December 2010.

The court was required to decide whether the proposed modification to the development application was acceptable, taking into account the concerns raised by the objectors. The key issues included the heritage impact of the glazing, privacy implications for nearby properties, noise and thermal performance of the glazing, and the relevance of the sale of units with masonry balconies. The court had to consider the arguments presented by both parties and determine whether the concerns raised by the objectors were valid and whether the proposed modification should be approved.

Commissioner Tuor accepted that the issues between the parties had been resolved and that the consent orders sought by the parties could be granted. The court found that the proposed glazing of the balconies was acceptable within the heritage context of the site, as it referenced materials, coloured brickwork, and banding from nearby heritage buildings. The court also found that the use of glazing rather than masonry would not result in unreasonable privacy impacts on nearby properties due to the distance and intervening vegetation. There was no evidence before the court that glazing would be unacceptable or that its acoustic or thermal performance was significantly inferior to masonry to warrant refusal of the application. Finally, the court held that the contractual arrangements between the owner of the property and the purchasers were not a relevant matter for consideration by the court.

The court ordered that the appeal was upheld, and the applicant was granted leave to rely on amended plans. The modification application was approved subject to conditions of consent, and the exhibits, except for certain documents, were returned. The court's decision allowed for the proposed modification to proceed, subject to the conditions of consent, and resolved the dispute between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.