Wisdom v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 656

Wisdom v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 656

The appeal was upheld because the amended proposal's 1.7m-high privacy screen would shield the rear yards of Nos 1/18 and 2/18, the owner of No 20 was satisfied, and the parties had reached agreement on consent orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application to Modify Development Consent 04/0417 / Ex Tempore Judgment on Agreed Consent Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application to modify Development Consent 04/0417 determined by granting consent subject to conditions in Annexure A; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'modification of Development Consent' 'privacy Impacts' 'consent Orders']
['planning and Development' 'land and Environment'] ['development Application' 'modification of Development Consent' 'privacy Impacts' 'consent Orders']

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 a Development Application to Modify Development Consent 04/0417 / Ex Tempore Judgment on Agreed Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether consent should be granted to modify Development Consent 04/0417 by extending the rear balcony to the full width of the first floor.' 'Whether the amended proposal adequately addressed privacy impacts on 1/18, 2/18 and 20 Alkaringa Road, Miranda.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the amended proposal's 1.7m-high privacy screen would shield the rear yards of Nos 1/18 and 2/18, the owner of No 20 was satisfied, and the parties had reached agreement on consent orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application to modify Development Consent 04/0417 determined by granting consent subject to conditions in Annexure A; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Application to modify Development Consent 04/0417, granted on 13 January 2005 in respect of 18 Alkaringa Road, Miranda, is determined by the granting of consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'No order on costs.' "Exhibit A is retained on the court's files."]