Guilfoyle Developments Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council [2010] NSWLEC 1173

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Guilfoyle Developments Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council [2010] NSWLEC 1173

APPLICANT Guilfoyle Developments Pty Limited PARTIES : RESPONDENT Woollahra Municipal Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10050 of 2010

CORAM: Tuor C

KEY ISSUES: CONSENT ORDERS :- s96 application for amended plans to change roof form of approved residential flat buildings to provide accommodation. Whether proposal achieves appropriate transition between commercial and residential zone.

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995

DATES OF HEARING: 23 April 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 23 April 2010

APPLICANT Ms S Hill, solicitor of Susan Hill & Associates Lawyers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

RESPONDENT Mr P Rigg, solicitor of Norton Rose Australia

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Tuor C

23 April 2010

10050 of 2010 Guilfoyle Developments Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council This determination was given extemporaneously and has been edited prior to publication

JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against the refusal by Woollahra Municipal Council (council) of an application under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) to modify a development consent (DA 324-2008) for a residential flat building at 4-12 Guilfoyle Avenue, Double Bay (the site). 2 The issues between the parties have been resolved through amended plans and they are seeking consent orders from the Court. 3 The site, its locality, the history of the application and the planning controls are in the Statement of Facts and Contentions (exhibit 4) and the joint report of the planners; Mr S Taylor, for the council and Mr L Adey, for the applicant (exhibit 3). 4 The s 96 application seeks to modify the development consent by the addition of an attic level to the western and eastern buildings achieved by changing the roof pitch from 20 degrees to 27 degrees, construction of side gables, a roof terrace and a Dutch gable on the northern elevation. Other internal amendments are proposed but were not raised as being in contention by the council. 5 The Court visited the site on 16 April 2010 and heard evidence from two objectors who live at the rear of the development at 11 and 7 South Street. Their principle concern was the potential increase in overshadowing. Mr Adey and Mr Taylor explained the overshadowing drawings and surveyor's report (exhibit B), which indicated that there would be no increase in overshadowing resulting from the amendments to the proposal. 6 The key contention initially raised by council was the scale, bulk, height and lack of transition of the proposed amendments to the roof form to incorporate the attic level. Amended plans were submitted which addressed this contention in relation to the building on the western allotment. 7 Mr Taylor recommended that a similar approach be adopted for the building on the eastern allotment through the imposition of condition. The proposed condition would require that unit six on level four be setback 2.7 metres from the south-western side boundary and replaced with a roof consistent with the style and pitch of the roof on the north-western side of the eastern building. 8 The applicant agreed to the imposition of the condition, however, during the hearing it was agreed that the changes required by the condition should be incorporated into a final set of drawings and conditions. These amended drawings are now before the Court and I am satisfied that they incorporate the proposed changes.