Mayer v Woollahra Municipal Council [2011] NSWLEC 1256

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mayer v Woollahra Municipal Council [2011] NSWLEC 1256 Hearing dates: 4 & 5 August 2011 Decision date: 31 August 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: (1)The appeal is upheld in part. (2)Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA 171/2010 for the demolition of an existing dwelling-house and swimming pool and the construction of a new part two, part three storey dwelling house, swimming pool with associated carparking, driveway, site works and landscaping at No. 10 Queens Avenue, Vaucluse subject to the conditions in Annexure A. (3)The exhibits, other than exhibit B, are returned. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; Dwelling house; height; impact on views Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995 Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 Pafburn v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWLEC 444 Texts Cited: Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Karl and Tanya Mayer (Applicants)

Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Mr I Hemmings (Applicant) Solicitors Susan Hill & Associates Lawyers Pty Ltd (Applicant)

Ms M Hawley Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 10439 of 2011

Judgment 1This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s34AA(2)(b)(i) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 against the refusal by Woollahra Council (the council) of Development Application No. DA 171/2010 (the application) which proposed the demolition of an existing dwelling-house and swimming pool and the construction of a new part two, part three storey dwelling house, swimming pool with associated carparking, driveway, site works and landscaping at No. 10 Queens Avenue, Vaucluse (the site). 2Despite some genuine attempts from the applicant to resolve issues during the conciliation phase of the hearing, the parties could not reach an agreement and accordingly agreed to terminate the conciliation and proceed to hearing. 3The contentions in the matter are whether the development complies with the council's planning controls and whether the impacts of the development on neighbouring properties are appropriate in terms of view loss, bulk and scale, overlooking and overshadowing.