Barecall Pty Ltd v Manly C [2006] NSWLEC 673

Barecall Pty Ltd v Manly C [2006] NSWLEC 673

The amended proposal for two units on the fourth floor, while exceeding FSR and height controls numerically, is compatible with townscape objectives, does not cause detrimental impacts on views, privacy, or Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, and meets car parking provisions. Conditional development consent is therefore appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Refusal of S96 Modification Application (development Consent) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conditional consent granted
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'modification of Consent' 'section 96' 'height' 'floor Space Ratio (fsr)' 'view Impacts' 'car Parking' 'foreshore Scenic Protection Area' 'townscape Compatibility']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Application' 'modification of Consent' 'section 96' 'height' 'floor Space Ratio (fsr)' 'view Impacts' 'car Parking' 'foreshore Scenic Protection Area' 'townscape Compatibility']

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 From Refusal of S96 Modification Application (development Consent) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether alterations and additions including two one-bedroom units on the fourth floor breach planning controls for height and FSR' 'Whether the proposal results in unacceptable view and privacy impacts' 'Whether car parking provisions comply with the DCP' 'Impact on Foreshore Scenic Protection Area']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended proposal for two units on the fourth floor, while exceeding FSR and height controls numerically, is compatible with townscape objectives, does not cause detrimental impacts on views, privacy, or Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, and meets car parking provisions. Conditional development consent is therefore appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conditional consent granted

Orders

  • ['Development consent granted to DA No 278/05 for alterations and additions including two one-bedroom units at 42 North Steyne, Manly' 'Exhibits may be returned except for 1, 2, A and D']