Kirzner v Manly Council [2013] NSWLEC 1016

The proposal, by reason of its excessive bulk and scale, overdevelopment, and detrimental impact on foreshore amenity, is inconsistent with development controls and the desired future character of the locality; accordingly, refusal of development consent is warranted.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 29 January 2013
Procedural Posture: Appeal Pursuant to S97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; development application refused
Legal Topics: ['development Application Refusal' 'foreshore Scenic Protection' 'bulk and Scale' 'tree Removal' 'density Controls']

['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application Refusal' 'foreshore Scenic Protection' 'bulk and Scale' 'tree Removal' 'density Controls']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Appeal Pursuant to S97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the proposal is excessive in bulk and scale' 'Whether the development is consistent with desired future character of the locality' 'Compliance with development standards including floor space ratio, height, setbacks, open space, and tree retention']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused

Orders

['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application 45/12 for a new dwelling and pool is refused consent.' 'The exhibits, other than exhibits 1 and A, are returned.']