Willis v Hornsby Shire Council

Case [2008] NSWLEC 1378



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Willis v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 1378
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Ken Willis

RESPONDENT
Hornsby Shire Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10567 of 2008
CORAM: Hussey C
KEY ISSUES: Building Certificate :- completed stone wall, adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring property.
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 1994
DATES OF HEARING: 27/08/2008 and 16/09/2008
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 16 September 2008
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr D. Williams, solicitor
of Whitehead Cooper Williams
with Mr K. Willis, litigant in person

RESPONDENT
Mr T. Pickup, solicitor
of Storey & Gough


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Hussey C

      16 September 2008

      10567 of 2008 Ken Willis v Hornsby Shire Council

      JUDGMENT

Background

1 This appeal was lodged against council’s refusal of a Building Certificate for a dry stacked stone retaining wall at 68A Eastcote Road, North Epping.

2 This site is zoned Residential A (Low Density) under Hornsby LEP 1994. Clause 9 of the LEP requires consent to carry out a work or any other development on land for any purpose where the work or other development has, in the opinion of the Council, the effect of significantly affecting the natural environment, through either filling or excavation.

3 The wall was constructed as part of the development of this property for a dwelling house and swimming pool. The conditions of consent referred generally to retaining walls and the applicant proceeded to construct the wall along the eastern boundary of the property and return it towards the swimming pool located further to the west. The stone wall varied in height from approximately 900mm at the rear house alignment to approximately 3m adjacent to the rear boundary of No 70A Eastcote Road.

4 Following objections from the owners of No 70A that the wall was not specifically approved and it was too high causing loss of privacy and solar access, the applicant made the building certificate application to regularise the wall. This is not withstanding that the applicant considered consent had been granted as part of the dwelling and pool approvals.

5 At the s34 conference the neighbours explained their concerns about the adverse impacts of the existing wall. This lead to further discussions between the parties ant the applicant lodging amended detailing for the wall.

6 These amendments are contained in exhibit G. The proposal is to substantially reduce the height of the wall along the common boundary and provide 3 terraces to transition to the existing paved terrace. The terraces comprise ‘Garden areas 1, 2 and 3’. It is proposed to landscape these gardens with appropriate native species to screen the terrace, minimise visual disamenity with the reduced, stepped wall and prevent overlooking.

7 Mr N Kennan, council’s consulting planner is satisfied that the amended proposal represents a reasonable balance between the applicants use of their property, relative to the impacts on the neighbouring property. The owners of No 70A have reviewed the amendments and are basically satisfied.

8 Having considered the amendments and associated impacts at the site, I am satisfied to separate consent would be required for a retaining wall of this magnitude. I then accept Mr Kennan’s opinion that they are now satisfactory for approval to enable conditional issue of the building certificate.

          1 The appeal is allowed.
          2 The Council is directed to issue the Building Certificate subject to:
              .1 The stone wall to be modified in accordance with Plan BH 035 dated 16/9/08 (Sheets 1/2).
              .2 Certification from a practicing structural engineer that the wall is structurally adequate and built in accordance with the approved plan.
              .3 Landscaping of ‘Garden beds 1, 2 and 3 to comprise fire resistant native species in accordance with details submitted to and approved by council. Garden beds 1 and 2 to contain screening species to a minimum height of 1.5m. Such landscaping to be maintained on an on-going basis.
              .4 Any surplus material from the retaining wall to be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to council.
              .5 These works to be completed by 31 March 2009.
          3 The exhibits be returned except 5 and G.

___________________

      R Hussey
      Commissioner of the Court
      ljr
Details
AGLC
Willis v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 1378
Case
[2008] NSWLEC 1378
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ken Willis brought an appeal against Hornsby Shire Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, challenging the council's refusal to grant a Building Certificate for a dry stacked stone retaining wall he had constructed at his property located at 68A Eastcote Road, North Epping. The Council had refused the certificate due to concerns raised by the owners of the neighbouring property, 70A Eastcote Road, regarding the wall's height and its impact on their privacy and solar access. The site in question is zoned Residential A (Low Density) under the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 1994, which requires consent for any development that significantly affects the natural environment. The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the wall required separate consent and, if so, whether the proposed modifications to the wall would sufficiently mitigate the adverse impacts on the neighbouring property.

The court found that the wall's construction did indeed require separate consent, as it was not specifically approved as part of the dwelling and pool approvals. The court considered the amended proposal submitted by Mr. Willis, which aimed to reduce the wall's height along the common boundary and incorporate three terraces landscaped with native species to screen the terrace and prevent overlooking. The court accepted the opinion of the council's consulting planner that the amended proposal represented a reasonable balance between the applicant's use of the property and the impacts on the neighbouring property. The owners of the neighbouring property also expressed basic satisfaction with the amendments.

The court allowed the appeal and directed the Council to issue the Building Certificate subject to certain conditions. These conditions included modifying the stone wall according to an approved plan, obtaining certification from a structural engineer, landscaping the proposed gardens with fire-resistant native species, maintaining the landscaping, disposing of any surplus material from the retaining wall in a manner satisfactory to the council, and completing the works by 31 March 2009. The exhibits were to be returned, except for two specified documents.

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.