Atkin v Waverley Council [2011] NSWLEC 1352

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Atkin v Waverley Council [2011] NSWLEC 1352 Hearing dates: 6 December 2011 Decision date: 06 December 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey C Decision: (1)The appeal is dismissed. (2)Development consent for DA 231/2011 for alterations to the front of the dwelling and provision of a car space and new fence and 168 Wellington St Bondi is refused. (3)The exhibits may be returned except 1, 7 and A. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - Alteration of front facade of dwelling to enable parking area in front of dwelling Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996 Waverley Development Control Plan 2010 Cases Cited: Anders v Waverley Council [2007] NSWLEC 760 Goldin & Anor v Minister for Transport Administering the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act 1995 [2002] NSWLEC 75 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Daniel Atkin (Applicant)

Waverley Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors Mr M McMahon (Applicant)

Mr S Patterson (Respondent) File Number(s): 10951 of 2011

Judgment

Background 1This appeal was lodged against council's refusal of a development application for alterations to the front of a detached dwelling house located at 168 Wellington St, Bondi, to enable the creation of parking area within the front setback area. 2This proposal involves the complete setback of the existing front facade of the dwelling by 80 cm in order to achieve a minimum setback distance of 5.5m to the road boundary to facilitate an on-site car space. The parking space involves the construction of two car strips from the existing kerb to the front of the dwelling and they are to be graded and raised by approximately 200 mm above the existing front paving area. 3The proposal also includes complimentary landscaping, together with the erection of a variable height paling fence along the street alignment, which includes a sliding gate adjacent to the driveway strips. 4For the appeal the council identified the following contentions: * Whether the proposal would unreasonably detract from the design integrity of the existing dwelling and unreasonably impact on the streetscape * Loss of on-street parking space * Pedestrian and vehicular safety (not pursued)