Glen McCormack v Marrickville Council [2006] NSWLEC 143

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Glen McCormack v Marrickville Council [2006] NSWLEC 143

APPLICANT Glen McCormack PARTIES : RESPONDENT Marrickville Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10478 of 2005

CORAM: Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES: Appeal :- Floor space ratio, height of the building, streetscape, visual privacy, built form

LEGISLATION CITED: Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2001 Development Control Plan No.35

DATES OF HEARING: 21/12/2005

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/31/2006

APPLICANT Mr G McKee, solicitor SOLICITORS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: MCKEES

RESPONDENT Mr G Christmas, solicitor Of: Marrickville Council

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

31 March 2006

10478 of 2005 Glen McCormack v Marrickville Council

JUDGMENT

1 This is a class 1 Appeal No. 10478 of 2005 between Glen McCormack and Marrickville Council in regard to a deemed refusal of a proposal to demolish an existing house and erect 2 semi-detached dwellings with Torrens Title subdivision at No. 4 Alfred Street, Marrickville. 2 The original application was for 3-storey dwellings with garages behind the front setback within each dwelling. Several amended designs have been done. At the hearing in October, the applicant asked for an adjournment to prepare more amendments. Directions issued allowed the parties to deal with the new plans within 3 weeks and seek a resumption date. The hearing did not resume until the end of December. The plans then showed 2-storey semi-detached dwellings with a carport behind the front setback on the western unit and a hardstand car-space within the front setback on the eastern unit. 3 The modified plans called the Revision E design were substituted in Exhibit A at the December hearing. In those plans the highest point of the roof had been lowered by about 0.5 m and in other places by over 2 m. Prominent second storey rooms at the front had been deleted and placed in a "rooms in the roof" design in the rear 2/3 of the building. Rear balconies at the upper level were reduced in size. This was partly due to the rooms off the balconies being changed from Rumpus rooms to bedrooms in each unit and the rumpus room deleted. 4 The site is on a hill, but due to the house on the western side, the land does not have significant views. The proposal by being 2-storeys would give each unit a district view towards the parkland on the Cooks River from the rear balconies. 5 The respondent remained concerned at the end of the hearing that the balconies were too big and would give rise to entertainment areas and overlooking that would disturb neighbours to the south and west. 6 The amended issues in Exhibit 7 were partly resolved with the Revision E design. Issue 1 in regard to Floor Space Ratio was deleted. Issue 2 in regard to the height of the building was deleted. 7 The remaining issues are: Issue 3: The proposed development would adversely impact on the character of the existing streetscape due to its excessive height, garage and carport within the front elevation and semi-detached style of building form. Particulars: Contrary to Objectives 01 and 02 and Control C3 and C4 of Part 3 Section 3B of the Urban Housing Vol. 1 Amendments 1 and 2 DCP No. 35 and Control C3 of Pt 2 Section B3 of the DCP. Issue 4 : The proposed development would adversely impact on the acoustic and visual privacy of adjoining properties. Particulars : The proposed first floor terraces would permit overlooking and cause impacts on Nos. 2 and 6 Alfred Street and 2A Princes Street. The proposed first floor balconies would create internal overlooking between the proposed dwellings.