Blackmore Design Group v Manly Council [2008] NSWLEC 1330

Blackmore Design Group v Manly Council [2008] NSWLEC 1330

The proposed development exceeds the maximum permissible FSR of 2:1 as prescribed by the relevant DCP, and this breach is not justified by local building context or improved design outcomes. Internal amenity, particularly solar access, is unsatisfactory given that a significant portion of apartments do not meet design code requirements, and the poor solar performance is attributable to the building design. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies warrants refusal of the development application.

Parties
Applicant: Blackmore Design Group Pty Ltd; Respondent: Manly Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Application, Floor Space Ratio, Solar Access, Urban Design, Heritage Conservation
Planning and Environment Law Development Application Floor Space Ratio Solar Access Urban Design Heritage Conservation

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blackmore Design Group Pty Ltd

Applicant

Manly Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Application Appeal / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed development exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio (FSR) for the site
  2. 2 Whether the impacts on neighbouring properties, particularly Manly Mews, are unacceptable
  3. 3 Whether internal amenity (including solar access and ventilation) is adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development exceeds the maximum permissible FSR of 2:1 as prescribed by the relevant DCP, and this breach is not justified by local building context or improved design outcomes. Internal amenity, particularly solar access, is unsatisfactory given that a significant portion of apartments do not meet design code requirements, and the poor solar performance is attributable to the building design. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies warrants refusal of the development application.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans.
  • The appeal is dismissed.