Goodenough v Ku-ring-gai Council [2004] NSWLEC 597

Goodenough v Ku-ring-gai Council [2004] NSWLEC 597

The appeal was upheld in part. Conditions requiring lodgement of a landscaping bond were struck out due to jurisdictional defect. The retaining wall must be moved 1 m further from the boundary to comply with DCP 38's 2 m requirement, supporting viability of 3 m boundary plantings for privacy. Screen planting need only reach swimming pool coping height along its eastern face. Objection to reed screen location was not sustained; its position as permitted by council was appropriate considering setback and privacy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld in extremely limited part; significant revision to conditions; matter set for callover to finalize orders.
Legal Topics
['development Consent Conditions' 'retaining Wall Setback' 'screen Planting and Privacy' 'drainage Easements']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent Conditions' 'retaining Wall Setback' 'screen Planting and Privacy' 'drainage Easements']

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 Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Jurisdiction to impose a landscaping maintenance bond condition' 'Appropriateness of 2 m setback for retaining wall' 'Height and location of screen planting' 'Adequacy of drainage system and requirements for certification' 'Location of reed screen relative to swimming pool and boundary']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld in part. Conditions requiring lodgement of a landscaping bond were struck out due to jurisdictional defect. The retaining wall must be moved 1 m further from the boundary to comply with DCP 38's 2 m requirement, supporting viability of 3 m boundary plantings for privacy. Screen planting need only reach swimming pool coping height along its eastern face. Objection to reed screen location was not sustained; its position as permitted by council was appropriate considering setback and privacy.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in extremely limited part; significant revision to conditions; matter set for callover to finalize orders.

Orders

  • ['Condition requiring landscaping maintenance bond struck out.' 'Condition requiring certification of adequacy of drainage system and any augmentation works prior to release of construction certificate to be incorporated.' 'Retaining wall to be moved 1 m further from boundary.' 'Revised condition permitting...