PSD Australia P/L & CMBS Australia P/L v Ku-ring-gai Council [2005] NSWLEC 70

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : PSD Australia P/L & CMBS Australia P/L v Ku-ring-gai Council [2005] NSWLEC 70

APPLICANT PSD Australia Pty Ltd and CMBS Australia Pty Ltd

PARTIES : RESPONDENT Ku-ring-gai Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 11329 of 2004

CORAM: Bly C

Development Application :- Demolition of existing dwelling and the erection of an attached dual occupancy - streetscape - visual - bulk and scale - setbacks - privacy - overshadowing - design. KEY ISSUES:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 53

DATES OF HEARING: 10/02/2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 02/10/2005

APPLICANT Mr S Klinger, solicitor

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr P Marincowitz, solicitor of Phillips Fox

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bly C

10 February 2005

11329 of 2004 PSD Australia Pty Ltd & CMBS Australia Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

JUDGMENT 1 This appeal relates to Development Application No 344/04, which is for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of a dual occupancy development at 172 Bobbin Head Road, Turramurra. The appeal was dealt with and judgement given at the on-site hearing.

2 The site comprises Lot 20 in DP 36328. It has an area of about 924 sq m and a frontage of about 24 m to Bobbin Head Road. It is situated in an area of detached dwelling houses on various sized and shapes lots that is undergoing a change to medium density development in the form of dual occupancy dwellings. 3 The application was advertised and one objection was received on behalf of the owners of the adjoining property at 170 Bobbin Head Road. Expressed matters of concern relate to: the extent of the proposed buildings footprint and height; overshadowing and visual bulk; overlooking from proposed balconies. 4 The application was refused by the council for reasons relating to: amenity impacts on neighbouring properties; visual impacts resulting from visual bulk; and the absence of an adequate site analysis. 5 The site is situated in the Residential 2(c) zone under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance. The proposal is permissible pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 53 Metropolitan Residential Development ("SEPP 53"). 6 Town planning evidence was given by the Court appointed expert Ms K Gordon. Resident objector evidence was given by Mr and Mrs McInerney of 170 Bobbin Head Road.