Tsougranis v Council of the City of Sydney

[2006] NSWLEC 241

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Tsougranis v Council of the City of Sydney [2006] NSWLEC 241
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Luke Tsougranis RESPONDENT Council of the City of Sydney
FILE NUMBER(S):	10285 of 2006
CORAM:	Moore C
KEY ISSUES:	Development Consent :- Modification application
DATES OF HEARING:	20 July 2006
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	07/20/2006
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr M Fraser, barrister RESPONDENT Mr S Kondilios, solicitor Maddocks Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Moore C

20 July 2006

10285 of 2006 Luke Tsougranis v City of Sydney Council

JUDGMENT

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

The consequence of the Court’s decision in this appeal is the modification of an existing development consent by amending the detailed conditions attaching to that consent. These conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but are available for inspection at the Council. In addition, a copy the Court’s Orders and the conditions may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders and conditions are available on the Court’s web site at

1 This is an appeal pursuant to s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979 against the refusal by the Council of the City of Sydney (the council) to permit the removal of a number of conditions attaching to a development consent for an infill development at 676 and 678 Bourke Street, Redfern (the site).

2 There was a matter in dispute between the parties at the commencement of the proceedings relating to whether or not a new brick dividing wall should be permitted at the rear of the property on the boundary of 678 and the neighbouring property to the south at 680 Bourke Street. That matter was resolved, during the course of discussions on-site, and agreed conditions have been reached between the parties that enabled owners consent to be given – which has now been given to the Court by the owners of 680 Bourke Street – for the demolition of the existing wall.

3 The construction of a new wall and a number of operational conditions associated with that construction are now agreed – with that new wall’s construction being at no cost to the owners of 680 Bourke Street. I am satisfied that that is an appropriate resolution of that matter in dispute.

4 The matters that relate to the presentation of the consolidated property to Bourke Street have been in large measure resolved by discussion between Mr Brady, the heritage adviser to the applicant, and Mr Hankey, the officer of the respondent who is responsible for these heritage matters.

5 In essence, those agreements relate to the incorporation of a decorative element to replicate the appearance of a fin wall within the roof form between the two elements of the structure and completion of the existing incomplete fin wall at the northern end of the roof form of the consolidated structure.

6 There is agreement between the experts about the guttering treatment, which will now incorporate a gutter at the front bottom of the main roof element – that is along the leading edge of the main roof element, which will be behind and through the masonry fin wall element – extending the present incomplete fin wall above the line of that roof.

7 This front gutter treatment is to be resolved by setting back the present location of the outer edge of the veranda roof with a gutter which will be continuous (but will pass through the fin wall), so that, from the street, there will be a distinct impression of retention of the subdivision pattern that had pre-existed in the vicinity. This presentation will then be consistent with the objectives of the Development Control Plan in this regard.

8 Further, there has been agreement between the parties that it is appropriate that the issues of openings, doors and fenestration at the upper levels be dealt with as set out in the following paragraphs.

9 There will be a masonry element of 770 mm width at each of the northern and southern ends of the upper level of the two elements of the infill development.

10 The remaining area is to be in four elements. The central portion of each element will be a pair of French doors which are to have wooden lower panels and upper glass panelling roughly in the proportion of two to one glass to wooden panel consistent with traditional upper level terrace house French doors.

11 On either side of the two pairs of French doors will be equal – that is equal for each of the elements within the separate sections of the infill development but not equal across the totality of both parts – glass elements that will have the same proportions as the French doors but with an upper awning-hung window and a lower fixed glass panel. The totality of the non-glazed elements of those structures will be made of wood.

12 Mr Fraser, barrister for the applicant, sought leave to amend, further, the application beyond that agreement to enable the location of the four elements on each side of the central thin wall to be arranged asymmetrically so that the French door elements in each instance would be closer to the fin wall and the window elements would be to the outer side, that is on the north to the north, and on the south to the south.

13 I refused leave to this application to amend in that regard because I considered, consistent with the desired future character of the area from the Development Control Plan, that that proposed without this further amendment was consistent with the general concept of terrace house development, whilst not seeking slavish mimicry of such development.

14 Revised, consolidated conditions of consent will be issued when revised plans and revised consolidated conditions have been filed which give effect to this decision and the agreement between the parties. For those reasons, on the basis of the amended application, the appeal is to be upheld subject to compliance with the following directions:

1. The respondent is to file revised consolidated conditions, electronically in accordance with Practice Direction 2 of 2005, and an e-Court notification, separate to the filing of the conditions, is to be sent to inform the Court that those conditions have been so filed; and
2. The matter is adjourned to call over before the Registrar on 8 August.

Tim Moore
Commissioner of the Court