Stalley v Ku-ring-gai Council [2004] NSWLEC 619

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Stalley v Ku-ring-gai Council [2004] NSWLEC 619 revised - 10/11/2004 APPLICANT G F Stalley PARTIES : RESPONDENT Ku-ring-gai Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10752 of 2004 CORAM: Bly C KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Detached dual occupancy - alterations and additions to existing dwelling - construction of detached single storey dwelling -solar access - amenity impacts LEGISLATION CITED: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 53 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 29/10/2004 EX TEMPORE 10/29/2004 JUDGMENT DATE :

APPLICANT Mr S Kondilios SOLICITORS Maddocks LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr P Rigg, solicitor SOLICITORS Deacons

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bly C

29 October 2004

10752 of 2004 G F Stalley v Ku-ring-gai Council

JUDGMENT 1 This on-site Court hearing involves a development application for the construction of a detached dual occupancy development comprising alterations and additions to an existing dwelling (Dwelling A) and construction of a second detached single storey dwelling (Dwelling B). 2 Overall, the proposal will have a floor space ratio of 0.324:1 and a total built upon area of about 48%. 3 The trapezoidal shaped site comprises Lot 59 in DP 10472 and is known as 123 Pentecost Avenue Turramurra. It has a frontage to both Pentecost Avenue and Raglan Street, and has an area of about 1090 sq m. It has a moderate fall from north to south. 4 The site has established gardens, including several mature trees and is located in an area characterised by single dwellings of one and two storeys. There is a mix of architectural styles and periods within the streetscape. 5 The adjoining site to the west being 125 Pentecost Ave. contains a two-storey dwelling fronting Pentecost Avenue, and the site to the east being 3 Raglan St. contains a single storey dwelling fronting Raglan Street. 6 The proposal is permissible with development consent under State Environmental Planning Policy No 53 -- Metropolitan Residential Development. ("SEPP 53.") 7 The application was advertised and letters of objection were received from the two neighbouring properties. 8 On 28 August 2003 Commissioner Moore dealt with an appeal involving a development very much the same as what is before the Court today. He refused that appeal essentially because of a solar access problem to Building A. In his judgment he dealt with a number of other matters including tree loss and privacy. 9 Whilst the privacy issue was of some concern, it was not a fatal consideration nor was the loss of a significant English Oak tree on the site. The other matters, including tree loss, that were not of critical concern to Commissioner Moore should not be revisited in this case.