Boukatos v Woollahra Council [2004] NSWLEC 8

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Boukatos v Woollahra Council [2004] NSWLEC 8 George Boukatos Applicant PARTIES : Woollahra Council Respondent FILE NUMBER(S) : 11098 of 2003 CORAM: Roseth SC KEY ISSUES: Development Application - Development Standards :- s96 application substantially same divelopment LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 15/01/2004 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/20/2004

Mr G Green, solicitor Pike Pike & Fenwick

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Ms J Hewitt, solicitor Michell Sillar

JUDGMENT:

- 4 - IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES 11098 of 2003

Roseth SC

20 January 2004 George Boukatos Applicant v Woollahra Council Respondent Judgment

Introduction 1 This is an appeal against the refusal of an application under s96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend development consent No 12164/2001 granted by Woollahra Council (the council) on 8 October 2002. That development application gave consent to a new two-storey house to be built on existing stone foundations. 2 The changes from the approved application are as follows: · Extending the double garage to a quadruple garage; · Creating an underground corridor linking the quadruple garage with the pool/entry level above; · Providing a lift serving four levels; · Converting the sub-floor areas at pool/entry level to habitable rooms, a laundry and a bathroom; · Internal modifications to the main living and bedroom levels; · Fenestration changes to all elevations; · Modifying the central roof monitor to a clerestory to the internal central stair and introducing a lift overrun; · Modifying planters adjacent to the eastern boundary; and · Modifying two columns supporting the northeast main living level balcony from slim (presumably metal) columns to wide masonry columns. 3 The major issue in the case was whether the amended proposal was substantially the same development as the approved proposal. The second issue was whether the extent to which the proposal exceeded the permissible Floor Space Ratio (FSR) was justified. The third issue was whether the extension of the excavation for an enlarged garage at the common boundary with the adjoining property was acceptable. The third issue was resolved between the experts, though it remained a concern of the objectors (see below).