Boston Blythe Fleming Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 1054

Boston Blythe Fleming Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 1054

The SEPP 1 objection was well founded because the proposal met the objectives of the maximum building height standard notwithstanding non-compliance: the use of part of the roof as a deck was compatible and anticipated by DCP 2003, visual privacy was safeguarded primarily by separation distances and further by landscaping to 2.4 m with conditions restricting use until that height was achieved, and the proposal would not unreasonably add to bulk, cause view loss or overshadowing, or create impacts materially different from a complying proposal. The remaining merit issues of visual privacy and bulk and scale were satisfactorily addressed, so the development application was approved subject...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Hearing Following Termination of a Conciliation Conference Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
The SEPP 1 objection was allowed, the appeal was upheld, and Development Application No. 346/2013 was approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'maximum Building Height Development Standard' 'roof Terrace' 'visual Privacy' 'residential Amenity' 'bulk and Scale']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'maximum Building Height Development Standard' 'roof Terrace' 'visual Privacy' 'residential Amenity' 'bulk and Scale']

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

Class 1 Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Hearing Following Termination of a Conciliation Conference Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards to cl 12 of Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995 was well founded.' 'Whether strict compliance with the maximum building height development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.' 'Whether the bulk, scale and visual privacy impacts of the proposed roof terrace, access stairs, balustrade and skylight were acceptable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objection was well founded because the proposal met the objectives of the maximum building height standard notwithstanding non-compliance: the use of part of the roof as a deck was compatible and anticipated by DCP 2003, visual privacy was safeguarded primarily by separation distances and further by landscaping to 2.4 m with conditions restricting use until that height was achieved, and the proposal would not unreasonably add to bulk, cause view loss or overshadowing, or create impacts materially different from a complying proposal. The remaining merit issues of visual privacy and bulk and scale were satisfactorily addressed, so the development application was approved subject...

Court Disposition

The SEPP 1 objection was allowed, the appeal was upheld, and Development Application No. 346/2013 was approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The objection under SEPP No. 1 to cl 12 of Woollahra Local Environmental Plan is allowed.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application No. 346/2013 for alterations and additions including a roof terrace, access stairs, balustrade and skylight on land at 8A Ginahgulla Road, Bellevue Hill, is approved, subject...