Curve 9 Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2004] NSWLEC 673

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Curve 9 Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2004] NSWLEC 673 APPLICANT Curve 9 Pty Ltd PARTIES : RESPONDENT Waverley Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10993 of 2004 CORAM: Tuor C. KEY ISSUES: Development Consent :- Alterations and additions to existing house - Delete condition of consent - impact of hardstand carspace on semi detached dwelling and streetscape - impact on street tree - traffic impact. LEGISLATION CITED: Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 01/12/2004 EX TEMPORE 12/01/2004 JUDGMENT DATE :

APPLICANT Mr Norton, barrister SOLICITORS Baron & Associates LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr Staunton SOLICITORS Staunton & Beattie

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Tuor C

1 December 2004

10993 of 2004 Curve 9 Pty Ltd v Waverley Council

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal against Condition 2 of the development consent (DA-308/2004) granted by Waverley Council (the council) on 21 September 2004, for alterations and additions at 100 Curlewis Street, Bondi Beach. 2 Condition 2 requires: "that the hardstand car space, associated driveway and modifications to the front (western) elevation of the dwelling and front fencing to accommodate the car space, be deleted, with amended plans be submitted prior to the issue of a construction certificate." 3 A description of the site, its context and the history of the application are in the Statement of Basic Facts. 4 The proposal is to demolish the front wall of the existing semi and move it back approximately 600 mm to provide sufficient depth for a hardstand area for one car. 5 The site is zoned Residential 2(c1) – Medium and High Density under Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996 (LEP 1996). Development Control Plan No. 2 – Dwelling House Development (DCP) also applies to the site. 6 The Statement of Issues before the Court contains three issues which can be summarised as: 1. Whether the proposal will have an acceptable impact on the uniformity of the pair of the semi detached houses and the streetscape. 2. Whether the angled crossover for the proposed car parking area is acceptable. 3. Whether the proposed crossover will have a detrimental impact on the existing street tree. 7 The hearing was held on site and the Court heard evidence from: · Mr M Faruqi, town planner for the council; · Mr B Usher, arborist for the council; and · Mr M Hartley, arborist for the applicant. 8 Section 6 of the DCP provides objectives in relation to streetscape, being: