Arkibuilt v Ku-ring-gai Council [2005] NSWLEC 728

Arkibuilt v Ku-ring-gai Council [2005] NSWLEC 728

The appeal was upheld because the proposed variations to setbacks, building width and building separation did not produce unacceptable streetscape, privacy, landscaping or design impacts. The Milray Street balcony and corner encroachments were limited and did not undermine the setback objectives; the Kochia Lane and Havilah Lane setbacks were acceptable in context, including their interface with adjoining commercial or mixed-use areas; the building width departures were justified by articulation or were minor; and the limited building separation non-compliances could be addressed by proposed privacy measures. The proposal satisfactorily addressed the relevant considerations in cl 25I(1),...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Judgment After Hearing; Conditions Determined
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal' 'multi Unit Housing Development' 'building Setbacks' 'building Width' 'building Separation' 'landscaping Conditions' 'tree Protection Conditions']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['development Application Refusal' 'multi Unit Housing Development' 'building Setbacks' 'building Width' 'building Separation' 'landscaping Conditions' 'tree Protection Conditions']

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Judgment After Hearing; Conditions Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the streetscape impact of the proposed multi-unit housing development was acceptable on the Milray Street, Havilah Lane and Kochia Lane frontages, particularly whether the built form dominated the landscape.' 'Whether the proposed buildings provided acceptable separation.' 'Whether the proposed buildings were excessive in width.' 'Whether disputed conditions 75 and 76 concerning landscape works and protection of existing vegetation should be imposed in the form sought by the council or the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the proposed variations to setbacks, building width and building separation did not produce unacceptable streetscape, privacy, landscaping or design impacts. The Milray Street balcony and corner encroachments were limited and did not undermine the setback objectives; the Kochia Lane and Havilah Lane setbacks were acceptable in context, including their interface with adjoining commercial or mixed-use areas; the building width departures were justified by articulation or were minor; and the limited building separation non-compliances could be addressed by proposed privacy measures. The proposal satisfactorily addressed the relevant considerations in cl 25I(1),...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'DA 282/05 for the demolition of all existing structures in the erection of a multi-unit housing development at 20-8 Milray Street and 10 Havilah Lane, Lindfield, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibits 1, 2, 6, D and...