NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Boniface v Randwick City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1327 Hearing dates: 10 November 2011 Decision date: 11 November 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: Development Application: Impact on views, encroachment into building setback, bulk and scale, impact on streetscape. Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) Local Government Act 1919 Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 Texts Cited: Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christopher Boniface (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr P Vergotis DLA Piper (Applicant)
Mr S Patterson Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent) File Number(s): 10811 of 2011
Judgment 1This is an appeal against the refusal by Randwick City Council (the council) of Development Application No DA/197/2011 (the application) which proposed the construction of additions above an existing garage to be used as a laundry and for storage at No 304 Rainbow Street, Coogee. It is a matter to be determined pursuant to s 34AA(2)(b) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the LEC Act) as there was no agreement during the conciliation phase of the process and the matter proceeded to an on-site hearing.
The site and its context 2The site, known as No 304 Rainbow Street, (the site) is one of only two allotments which have frontage to that road on its northern side between Arden and Dundas Streets. The adjoining property to the west, No 302, is the other. A dwelling fronting Arden Street is located further to the west and Blenheim Park adjoins the site's eastern boundary. 3A three-storey residential flat building is sited on the south-eastern corner of Arden and Rainbow Streets and the remaining houses fronting Rainbow Street on its southern side comprise a mix of single and two storey detached dwelling houses of varied age, condition and architectural style. 4Parking for the dwellings in the section of Rainbow Street between Arden and Denning Streets is provided in a number of forms ranging from hardstand areas within the building setback area to garages incorporated within the main dwelling. Not all properties enjoy off-street parking. The setback of garages varies and ranges from nil to parking within the rear yard accessed from a driveway alongside the dwelling. 5The garages of Nos 302 and 304 are erected on a nil setback to Rainbow Street. Both are double garages and have flat roofs behind parapets. The residents of No 302 use the area above the garage as a recreation area however the roof of No 304 is not accessible or used. 6The existing dwelling house erected on the site is a two-storey structure setback approximately 6.5 m from the street boundary. Garaging is located between the street boundary and the southern facade with side passages providing access to the entry and rear yard area. The dwelling at No 302 is setback further than the dwelling at No 304.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate