NEXT-DOOR neighbours on the waterfront at Sylvania have ‘‘fallen out’’ over a balcony built to take full advantage of views of the Georges River.
The two couples had been friends for 20 years, and the husbands played tennis together, but not any more due to a battle over privacy.
An upstairs balcony from a living area in a new house built by one couple completely overlooks the backyard and swimming pool next door.
The concrete base extends 4.5 metres, which is a metre further than that approved in the development application (DA).
In addition, a side balustrade consists of clear glass.
The development ‘‘devastated’’ the couple next door, who have lived there for 38 years.
However, their complaints to Sutherland Shire Council have so far failed to gain them any satisfaction.
The council is considering a late application by the new house owners, through a standard amendment process, to move the front balustrade from 3.5 metres to 4.5 metres.
A decision will then be made on any action over unapproved building work.
The council ruled out the need for a privacy screen on the side of the balcony.
In a letter to the council, the complainants, who did not wish to be identified by the Leader, said, ‘‘We agree with ‘view sharing’, but not taking the privacy of neighbouring homes’’.
‘‘On New Year’s Eve, they had about 20 visitors on the balcony all looking into our yard and the bagpiper we had there.’’
The complainants said the maximum size of a balcony from an upstairs living area, ‘‘according to the Land and Environment Court’’, was 2.5 metres.
‘‘A 3.5 metres width was approved by the council after the development application stated the balcony would be ‘a passive area, infrequently used’,’’ they said.
The complainants said the balcony, which accommodated a large table and lounge suite, was used frequently.
They said they did not make a submission about the privacy impact during the DA process because they were assured they had ‘‘nothing to worry about’’.
Even if the council rejected the application to extend the front balustrade, the concrete base was in place.
The owners of the new house declined to comment.
UNDER REVIEW
A council spokeswoman said a building certificate application, which can vary an approved DA, had been submitted for an extended balcony, and the impacts were being assessed.
The owners of the new house had been advised the balustrade remain at 3.5 metres in the meantime.
‘‘A privacy screen to the side elevation of the balcony was not an automatic requirement as part of consent,’’ she said.
‘‘Due to the nature and topography of the site and surrounding waterfront properties, view sharing is not considered uncommon and, as a result, a privacy screen was not required under the original consent.
‘‘In addition, the owners of the neighbouring property did not lodge a submission during the initial DA process regarding privacy impacts.’’
The spokeswoman said the outcome of the building certificate application would determine further action.
She said Sutherland Shire’s development control plan 2006, amendment 3, did not stipulate a minimum allowable width for balconies off living areas.
‘‘Such development is subject to a merit-based assessment,’’ she said.
How do you think the council should act in this matter?
