Allen Raymond Lakeman v Waverley Council [2006] NSWLEC 134

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Allen Raymond Lakeman v Waverley Council [2006] NSWLEC 134

APPLICANT Allen Raymond Lakeman PARTIES : RESPONDENT Waverley Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 11591 of 2005

CORAM: Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES: Appeal :- Development application for on site carpark, streetscape, loss of landscaped area on existing site, amenity impact on neighbours, pededstrian/vehicle conflict, visual impact on existing site and neighbours.

LEGISLATION CITED: Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996 Waverley Development Control Plan No. 14

DATES OF HEARING: 20/03/2006

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 03/20/2006

APPLICANT Mr G Newport, barrister

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr M Staunton, solicitor SOLICITORS Staunton Beattie

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

20 March 2005

11591 of 2005 Allen Raymond Lakeman v Waverley Council

JUDGMENT

1 This is a class one appeal No. 11591 of 2005 between A R Lakeman and Waverley Council in regard to the refusal of a parking space on-site at No. 176 Ebley Street, Bondi Junction. The site is a 3-storey Art Deco block of nine flats on a site of 588 sq m. It is at a dead end of Ebley Street and its only frontage is the width of the footpath as the site is offset from the road at the very end. As a result the frontage is about 3.8 m. 2 The site has no drive entry. Next to it at No. 174 Ebley Street is a semi-detached house with a brick front fence and no drive entry. Outside it is a footpath, a grass verge and a street tree. To create a drive entry to the subject site there has to be a concrete driveway across most of No. 174, the tree and grass verge must be removed and a bollard placed near No. 174's pedestrian gate in order to protect any pedestrians using the narrow gate at the same time a vehicle might be exiting from or reversing into the subject site. 3 There is agreement between the parties that the street tree is in poor condition and in due course should be removed and replaced by the council. If the subject proposal is granted, the tree would need to be located further to the west along Ebley Street away from the frontage of No. 174. 4 As part of the proposal, in order for a vehicle to enter the site it would require a three point reversing turn. To some extent the site is favoured by a 'no stopping' area in front of No. 174 that would enable this movement without reducing on-street parking. 5 Ebley Street is very close to Bondi Junction shopping centre and is in high demand for on-street parking. There is a one hour time limit and vehicles on one side of the road park at right angle to the kerb and those on the other park parallel. There is a mixture of houses, semi-detached houses and 1920's and 1930 style apartments. 6 One of the main motivations for the application is that service personnel coming to the subject site have complained of having to park their service vehicles down the street and carry equipment back to the site, and also having to move vehicles every hour or risk the parking fine, and there has also been reported incidents of goods being stolen from their vehicles. 7 The applicant had originally asked for two on-site car spaces but had reduced to the one service vehicle space. It is to be behind the alignment of nearest wall of the apartments to the street in what might be called a side setback. It was however, directly in alignment with the visual axis from the street. 8 At the dead end of the street is No. 145 which is also a three storey apartment block of Art Deco flats that have been renovated with new balconies added to the outside and carparking spaces on-site. I was told this development was approved prior to the relevant Development Control Plan No. 14 that brought in more stringent controls on urban design impacts of providing carparking. This control also considered parking on old sites where no carparking had been provided. 9 The issues were: 1. Whether or not the proposal is an unacceptable development in Residential 2(b) zoning under Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996 (WLEP 1996), in regard to zone objective (b) concerning local amenity and plan objectives (a), (b), (d) and (e) concerning traffic and transport. Particulars The proposal is considered to conflict with the zone objective (b) to maintain and improve the amenity and existing characteristics of the locality and plan objectives in clause 11 in WLEP 1996, the specific aims that the proposal is considered are shown below. (11) The specific aims of this Plan in relation to traffic and transport are: (a) to minimise the adverse impact of traffic on all land uses by ensuring adequate consideration is given to the impact of traffic when development applications are assessed; (b) to encourage land use patterns which reduce the need to travel by motor vehicle and increase the use of public transport, bicycles and walking to reduce the adverse impact of travel on the environment; (d) to ensure all development involving traffic gives adequate consideration to the needs of cyclists and pedestrians; (e) to minimise conflict between pedestrians and vehicles by ensuring adequate consideration is given to the location of vehicular entry and exit points; 2. Whether or not the proposal is acceptable in respect to Part 2 Parking Provision and Part 4 Design Guidelines for Parking and Loading Facilities in Development Control Plan 14 - Land Use and Transport (DCP 14). Particulars There are no carparking provision requirements for existing development in Part 2 of the DCP 14. The strategic planning rationale for car parking provision (see Part 2.0 of the DCP) would seek to limit new car parking facilities to a well located residential flat building, as is the subject site. The DCP provides a clear preference for a balanced approach to transport and favours pedestrian, bicycle and public transport over car use.