Room without a bay view

BY ANGIRA BHARADWAJ

Local residents are furious after the NSW Land and Environment Court approved the development of a one-story height extension on an Elizabeth Bay apartment block.

The extension proposed for 13-17 Ithaca Road was initially applied for two-storeys but was amended and reduced to the addition of one new level containing two, three-bedroom apartments.

Resident Avi Ohana said the development will result in a loss of the harbour view, light and air circulation for his property.

“My unit is losing everything that we bought it for. We went to the Land Court thinking there was a chance to disturb the bond between the council and the developer but the whole court case was all for show.

“We voiced our concerns because to us this is absolutely devastating…Everything was pointing to say that yes you are absolutely right but we don’t care,” he said.

Mr Ohana said community members felt their views were disregarded in the court case.

“What we don’t understand is, why go to the Land Court when the council has agreed with the developer? The Court said if the two parties agree, why should they intervene?

“They are adding two great penthouses with a great view that they are stealing from us…We know for a fact that we are going to lose money on the apartment.”

Mr Ohana said making the broader community suffer for the benefit of two apartments was unjust.

“We have our hands tied behind our back because you can’t fight the council, you can’t fight the developer, you can’t fight anything. They can squash anyone,” he said.

The court acknowledged that some of the properties would be significantly impacted by the way of view losses, including Mr Ohana’s unit number 10. Acting Commissioner Hussey presided over the hearing.

“I am satisfied that greater weight should be given to the overall public interest considerations in approving the amended, substantially complying development notwithstanding the private interest loss of views from some units. This outcome is inevitable in some circumstances.

“Whilst other objections were raised concerning loss of amenity in terms of light, air circulation and parking, there was no substantive evidence presented to support this speculation, so as to warrant refusal of this amended application, in my assessment of the evidence,” he said.

Kay Papadopoulos, also a resident of the building said she was disappointed by the court’s findings.

“In the case of 13-17 Ithaca Road, it will not have ‘inevitable view loss’ because Boomerang is in front and is Heritage listed, I understand. But what if it wasn’t? Is that loss inevitable?” she said.

“In our area, the apartments tend to be small. The views give us more space and enjoyment of such tiny spaces- they prevent us being essentially entombed in the small apartments”

Andrew Woodhouse, Co-convenor of the Elizabeth Bay Residents’ Society said the decision was disappointing.

“This appalling court decision is partly the court’s fault, which failed to justify its reasons or take account residents’ right to live in their chosen environment, and partly Sydney Council’s fault, which failed to represent residents properly. After all, just whose council is this, ours or theirs?” he said.

The City of Sydney Council was unable to provide a comment on the matter.