Watterson v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 249

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Watterson v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 249

APPLICANT PARTIES : Roy Watterson RESPONDENT Leichhardt Municipal Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 11175 of 2005

CORAM: Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES: Development Consent :- Alterations and additions, heritage significance, streetscape, conservation area, floor space ratio exceedance

Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 LEGISLATION CITED: Sydney and Middle Harbours Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1

DATES OF HEARING: 26/04/2006

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/17/2006

APPLICANT Mr T Hale, SC Instructed by Ms R Hay, solicitor SOLICITORS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Slater & Gordon

RESPONDENT Ms J Walsh, solicitor SOLICITORS Pike Pike & Fenwick

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

17 May 2006

11175 of 2005 Roy Watterson v Leichhardt Municipal Council

JUDGMENT

1 This is a class one appeal No. 11175 of 2005 between R Watterson and Leichhardt Municipal Council in regard to conditions of development consent No. DA04/701 for alterations and additions to No. 22 Datchett Street, Balmain. 2 There is an existing two storey house on the site which fronts Datchett Street overlooking Cameron's Cove. Datchett Street is very narrow and slopes down towards the harbour from Darling Street. The street dead ends at a public walkway along the foreshore and the last 100 m or so of the road is quite steep such that vehicle access to the last six or eight houses is impracticable. The site has rear vehicle access to Little Nicholson Street. 3 The council approved a large attic studio and enclosure of a rear first floor balcony overlooking the backyard. The applicant also wants to enclose the front first floor balcony for a study/office overlooking Cameron's Cove. This was refused. 4 The appeal is against conditions 2(a) and (b) of the consent. 2(a) required the Datchett Street balcony to remain unenclosed and 2(b) require a privacy screen on the south end of the rear balcony enclosure to protect the privacy of No. 24 Datchett Street. At the hearing the applicant agreed to comply with Condition 2(b) so that part of the appeal was withdrawn. 5 The issues remaining are: 1. The enclosure of the front balcony at the first floor is not supported, as its design is unsympathetic to the nearby heritage items and the character of Datchett Street as a whole.