A Sydney developer denied permission by a court to build a taller development than he’d received approval for, built a higher one anyway.

The company, Parker Logan Property, already in the Supreme Court over its bid to cancel its off-the-plan buyers’ contracts on another block of apartments, now faces a wait to see if the council votes to take further action against it for its latest building development.

But angry neighbours of the prominent new development in Edgecliff, the five-storey, 19-apartment Elements, are demanding the council immediately order the company to tear down the unauthorised additions.

“This feels like stealth by millimetres,” says local resident Rob Hood, the chair of the closest apartment building that looks onto the site.

“The Land and Environment Court all along ruled against Parker Logan being able to build higher because of the impact on a number of nearby residents and their loss of views as a result.

“While the new roofline they’ve built isn’t as high as if they’d been permitted to put on a whole extra floor, it’s still having a significant impact on others living nearby. But my concern is that the council might be reluctant to take action because of the expense, and just let it slide and allow the developer to get away with it.”

The building at 240 New South Head Road, close to Double Bay, has been controversial since the beginning, when it was allowed to exceed Woollahra Council’s planning controls for the site, increasing the maximum floorspace ratio from 0.875:1 to 4:1 and increasing the maximum building height from 9.5 metres to 18 metres.

But then Parker Logan put in another DA, this time for an even taller building, with an extra floor for a penthouse on top. The council ruled against it and the developer challenged their decision at the Land and Environment Court, and lost.

Now, to residents’ horror, a pitched roof has just been placed on top of the structure, exceeding the 18.1-metre height limit set by both the council and the court, and cutting off some neighbours’ water views. Parker Logan has put in another application to council for the new roofline to be allowed.

A spokesperson from Woollahra Council said, “Construction work in breach of the original consent has taken place, and a subsequent modification application, encompassing that work, filed in July, is currently being assessed.

“Council’s position will not be determined until the assessment has been completed.”

The council’s enforcement policy allows it to either agree to the changed work, or impose a set of penalties, ranging from ordering the unauthorised work to be demolished to fines, prosecution and court injunctions.

Parker Logan refused to comment when contacted by Domain. “We have no comment and we don’t speak to the media,” the company official said.

The company’s managing director, Joel Redelman, is also awaiting a decision by a Supreme Court judge on his application to rescind the contracts of a number of purchasers of apartments in a building on Mary Street, Surry Hills. During the case, he said there had been cost and time blow-outs during construction, while buyers alleged he wanted to cancel the contracts to re-sell the units for higher prices.

In Edgecliff, the council says the developer had told them that a structural engineer said they needed to construct a lightweight hipped timber roof, as the footings and foundations of the building weren’t strong enough to support the original planned concrete roof.

A consultant engineer and architect hired by the residents, Igor Vavrica of Project Design Services, says he’s been through the construction papers and believes the foundations documented are strong enough – and would have been strong enough to have supported the extra floor the developer had asked for.

“I think it’s simply a money-saving exercise,” says Vavrica. “The lightweight material costs $100 per square metre while the concrete costs $340-$360 per square metre. That gives them a dollar saving somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000 in construction costs. There’s no other explanation.

“This particular project, since its original approval, has had 10 applications to modify different aspects. This just isn’t the same project anymore.”

Another local resident, John Green, says he’s appalled by the situation. “This developer is pushing the envelope all the way through,” he says. “It’s just another example of how a developer treats the surrounding community. It seems to be far easier to ask for forgiveness after the fact than to request permission beforehand.

“The council has done an excellent job in refusing one application to go higher and now we’re looking for the council to continue living up to its obligations. It’s important that councils stand up to developers.”