The Land and Environment Court has rejected a development proposal to convert a garage located on one side of a dual occupancy building in Bondi (located at 34 Imperial Avenue as depicted above on "Google Earth") into a bedroom. The primary problem that was fatal to this appeal was the impact that the proposal would have had on car parking arrangements for the building - namely, that the parking for the dwelling would have been moved from the garage to a location "forward of the building line". The Court, per Commissioner Fakes, concluded that this design outcome would be "a retrograde step" and contrary to the principles specified in Waverley Council's Development Control Plan.
Commissioner Fakes's decision in this case, Alco Electrics Pty Ltd v Waverley Municipal Council, (2015) NSWLEC 1034 (3 March 2015) can be reviewed at the following link:
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/54f53276e4b0b773015d5b57
As recounted in the Commissioner's written judgement, the Council's DCP provisions relating to car parking call for a descending hierarchy, with the most preferred alternative being to situate the parking area to the rear of a site with access also being from the rear; the second option being to locate the parking to the side of the dwelling and behind the building alignment, and the least desired solution involving locating parking space on a hardstand area forward of the front building line. Furthermore, the design principles stated in the DCP specify that car parking is to be sympathetically integrated into the design of residences.
The Commissioner accepted the evidence of the council's planning expert that converting the garage into a bedroom would result in an off-street parking outcome that would be less desirable from a planning perspective than the present configuration (where the parking for the dwelling is internal and thus avoids the need for a vehicle to be parked at the front of the property). The Commissioner also concurred with the council's planner that the proposal to install "highlight" windows in a wall to be built where the present garage door is located would provide a poor level of amenity to occupants of the proposed additional bedroom (in other words, poor solar access and limited outlooks) and determined that the proposal was unacceptable for that reason as well.
The result in this case again instructs that land use proposals that involve diminishing streetscape appearance in order to accommodate vehicles are likely to receive an unsympathetic reception both from council planners and from the Court.
