Starkey & Anor v Warringah Council [2015] NSWLEC 1261

Starkey & Anor v Warringah Council [2015] NSWLEC 1261

The appeal is dismissed because the proposed development is inconsistent with the planning controls contained in the Warringah Development Control Plan, particularly regarding the location of the pool and retaining walls within the primary front setback, the preservation of the streetscape character, and compliance with landscaping and openness objectives, and there are no sufficient reasons to vary these controls.

Parties
Applicant: Carolyn Starkey; Applicant: Chris Dafel; Respondent: Warringah Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Application, Swimming Pool, Streetscape, Front Setback, Residential Zone, Local Environmental Plan, Development Control Plan
Planning Law Environmental Law Development Application Swimming Pool Streetscape Front Setback Residential Zone Local Environmental Plan +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyn Starkey

Applicant

Chris Dafel

Applicant

Warringah Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Application Appeal / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the development will have an unreasonable impact on the streetscape
  2. 2 Whether the development complies with the requirements and objectives of the Warringah Development Control Plan (DCP)
  3. 3 Whether the pool is sited in the primary or secondary street frontage as defined by the DCP

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the proposed development is inconsistent with the planning controls contained in the Warringah Development Control Plan, particularly regarding the location of the pool and retaining walls within the primary front setback, the preservation of the streetscape character, and compliance with landscaping and openness objectives, and there are no sufficient reasons to vary these controls.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Development Application DA2014/1149 for the installation of a swimming pool and to carry out alterations to the front landscape including the construction of retaining walls at 104 Delmar Parade Dee Why is refused consent.