Tectonic Development Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council

[2004] NSWLEC 235

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Tectonic Development Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 235

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Tectonic Development Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT
Sydney City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10085 of 2004

CORAM:

Hussey C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :-

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

04/05/04

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

05/04/2004

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Ms J Smith, solicitor
SOLICITOR
Wilshire Webb

RESPONDENT
Mr M Ball, ?

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

10085 of 2004 Hussey C 4 May 2004

Tectonic Development Pty Ltd
Applicant

v Sydney City Council
Respondent Judgment


1. This appeal as against council’s refusal of a section 96 Modification to enclose a first floor balcony and install a sliding screen, in the form of plantation shutters at 1 Copeland Street Alexandria.

2. Mr Goodwin, council statutory planner said the proposal was unsatisfactory because it does not comply with South Sydney DCP Part F. 1.2.4, which states that
"the infill of existing balconies will not be permitted".

3. Also, he does not consider that the enclosure of the first floor front balcony satisfies the objectives of Part F. 1.2.3 of the DCP which provides that;


"ensure the facades of new buildings, including garages, offences, and screen walls, relates sympathetically to existing buildings nearby and to the streetscape of heritage significance "….

" Ensure dwelling facades reinforce the uniformity of the street and its heritage character ".

4. Even though the subject site has been listed as a detracting item within the Copeland Street streetscape and conservation area, Mr Goodwin considered that the plantation shutters would not in keeping, or in sympathy with the other heritage building elements with the immediate streetscape.

5. As this 1980s style terrace is situated on the corner of the lane, Mr Goodwin says that it provides an effective bookend style of terrace to the existing row of Victorian terrace style dwellings.

6. Following the view, where various design alternatives were discussed, the applicant has submitted a revised plan, numbered SO 3b, which provides for partial closure of the upper balcony, by way of fixed timber slat screens, with spacing to match the ground level front fence. This front fence is of a high masonry and slat panel design.

7. Having considered the evidence and observations on the view, it appears to me that the concept of bookend buildings is relevant in this immediate streetscape context. The subject property does form a bookend function at the eastern end of the block. Then there is a relatively consistent row of terraces adjoining, which are bookended by the heritage listed properties at 29 A, B, C. However this row of buildings is interrupted by the unsympathetic residential flat building at No 42.

8. It seems to me that this revised design does strengthen the bookend character, by providing the partial, fixed screens on the balcony level. As these screens only cover about one-third of the terrace length and they are on the lane end, it provides reinforcement to the bookend. This allows the terrace to still maintain a substantially open aspect, and in my opinion is consistent with the partial open balconies approved and constructed at the other southern “bookend”. I also consider that there are some extraordinary circumstances in this location, where the property is adjacent to a bus stop, which likely contributes to its loss of privacy and supports the applicants case for the screen to obtain reasonable privacy.
9. Therefore I consider this revised design provides reasonable compliance with controls for this conservation streetscape and offers substantial visual improvements for this basic 1980s style terrace.

10. Orders
1 The appeal is allowed.
2 The s 96 modification to the first floor balcony at 1 Copeland Street, Alexandria is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’.

3 The exhibits may be returned except for Exhibits X, 2, E, 5.



________________________
R R Hussey
Commissioner of the Court
mp