Frisoli v Leichhardt C [2005] NSWLEC 451

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Frisoli v Leichhardt C [2005] NSWLEC 451

APPLICANT Albert Frisoli

PARTIES : RESPONDENT Leichhardt Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10485 and 10486 of 2005

CORAM: Hoffman C

Appeal :- Refusal of the issue of a Building Certificate and an Occupation Certificate relating to a swimming pool and a pool house. KEY ISSUES:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000

DATES OF HEARING: 15/08/2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 08/15/2005

APPLICANT Mr M. Fraser, barrister instructed by Mr M Pearce, solicitor of Watson & Watson Solicitors

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

RESPONDENT Ms J. Walsh, solicitor of Pike Pike & Fenwick.

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

15 August 2005

10485 of 2005 Albert Frisoli v Leichhardt Council 10486 of 2005

JUDGMENT 1 This hearing is in regard to two appeals between Mr Albert Frisoli v Leichhardt Council. Appeal No. 10485 of 2005 is in regard to the refusal to issue a Building Certificate under s 149D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act . Appeal No. 10486 of 2005 is in regard to the refusal to issue an Occupation Certificate. Both are related to a development consent DA 2002/381 for a swimming pool and pool house at No. 17 Goodsir Street, Rozelle.

2 The issues in Appeal No. 10485 are: 1. The building has not been constructed in accordance with the Development Consent DA 2002/381 granted by Leichhardt Council on 13 January 2003 or the Construction Certificate CC2003/98 and whether an Order under cl 1218 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to comply with the Development Consent should be served. Particulars o The roof form and the gutter on the western elevation adjoining 15 Goodsir Street has been constructed such that the height of the gutter in relation to the boundary wall is erected 400mm higher than that approved; and o The building which was granted consent for the purpose of a cabana related to the approved swimming pool has been constructed with the facilities to enable occupation as a self- contained residential purpose. 2. The building as constructed has the potential to cause detrimental amenity impacts on adjoining residences if the building is used for separate residential occupation.