Lennon v Mosman Council [2005] NSWLEC 114

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Lennon v Mosman Council [2005] NSWLEC 114

Applicant: Mal Lennon PARTIES : Respondent: Mosman Municipal Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 11370 of 2004

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :-

DATES OF HEARING: 11/03/2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 03/11/2005

Applicant: Ms M Taylor, solicitor LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Ms J Walsh, solicitor

JUDGMENT: - 8 - THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

11 March 2005

11370 of 2004 Mal Lennon v Mosman Municipal Council

JUDGMENT 1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal of a development application to extend the existing garage by 1m and renew its roof on lot 2 DP 616776, known as 21 Boyle Street, Mosman. 2 The Court heard the objections of two residents: Mr G Crawford of 11 Boyle Street and Mr R Foster of 21A Boyle Street. Mr Crawford's objection related to streetscape. He thought that a 1m extension would appear visually disruptive in Boyle Street. 3 Mr Foster's property adjoins the subject site. He endorsed Mr Crawford's objections relating to streetscape. He was also concerned about the additional bulk of the garage that he would see from his property. His main objection, however, was that the garage was not capable of accommodating two cars and the extension would make the apron shorter, so that a car would no longer be able to park in front without overhanging the footpath. 4 It was common ground that the garage could accommodate two cars, provided the rear car reversed into the garage. The court sought the assistance of the council's engineer, Mr C Covitch, for advice whether the garage could accommodate a small and a large car, if the both parked in a forward direction. His advice was that it was possible but not very convenient. 5 The Court-appointed expert was Mr G Goodyer, a town planner. His view was that the extension of the garage would have an adverse though not a major adverse impact on the streetscape. He considered that this impact was justified, as long as the garage provided accommodation for two cars. He also accepted that the two alternatives of reversing or a household owning one large and one small car amounted in practice to an acceptance of the garage as a two-car garage, not an ideal but a two-car garage nonetheless. Consequently he thought that the minor impact on the streetscape was acceptable. 6 In Mr Goodyer's opinion, the impact on Mr Foster was not of such magnitude as to justify the refusal of the application. I have inspected No 21A and I have come to the same conclusion. 7 I note that the council's planning staff recommended approval. For the above reasons the appeal is upheld. The only disagreement about conditions was about Condition 7 requiring the applicant to keep the garage doors closed. In my opinion, such a condition intrudes into personal behaviour too much, so I have not imposed it. Orders 1. The appeal is upheld.