Lee-Anne Dalley v Woollahra Municipal Council [2015] NSWLEC 1134

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lee-Anne Dalley v Woollahra Municipal Council [2015] NSWLEC 1134 Hearing dates: 12 March, 2015 Decision date: 04 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O'Neill C Decision: 1. The appeal is upheld in part. 2. Development Consent No. 103/2014/1 is modified so that the overall height of the development is at RL66.15. 3. The exhibits, other than exhibits A and 6, are returned. Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: deletion of a condition of the consent requiring the roof level of the new dwelling to be reduced by 1 metre; impact on existing views from surrounding residences. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ms Lee-Anne Dalley (Applicant) Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr Gary Green (Applicant) Mr Stephen Patterson (Respondent)

Solicitors: Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 11031 of 2014

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 97AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal of Modification Application No. 103/2014/1 for the deletion of a condition of the consent requiring the roof level of the approved development to be reduced by 1 metre, at 11 Gilliver Avenue, Vaucluse (the site), by Woollahra Municipal Council (the Council). 2. The appeal was subject to mandatory conciliation on 12 March, 2014, in accordance with the provisions of s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. Notwithstanding the agreement of the planning experts on the basis of amendments made to the design of the dwelling, the Council pressed its contentions regarding the unreasonable impact of the proposal on views from adjoining properties, so the conciliation conference was terminated pursuant to s 34AA(2)(b) and the proceedings dealt with as a hearing held forthwith, pursuant to s 34AA(2)(b)(i). 3. Leave was granted by the Court for the applicant to rely on an amended design (exhibit A) (the proposal), on the basis agreed by the parties, pursuant to s 97B(2) of the EPA Act.