Paci v Canterbury Council [2005] NSWLEC 613

Paci v Canterbury Council [2005] NSWLEC 613

The proposed dual occupancy was permissible with consent and the departures from DCP 14 controls for second floor front setback, side ground floor setback, private open space dimensions and minimum site width were justified because, on the site evidence, they did not cause unacceptable streetscape, amenity, privacy, open space or neighbour impacts and the relevant DCP objectives were satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application No: R722/03 / Ex Tempore Judgment After on Site Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application No: R722/03 approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['dual Occupancy Development' 'streetscape Impact' 'setbacks' 'lot Width' 'private Open Space' 'overlooking' 'development Control Plan Variations']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['dual Occupancy Development' 'streetscape Impact' 'setbacks' 'lot Width' 'private Open Space' 'overlooking' 'development Control Plan Variations']

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 Development Application No: R722/03 / Ex Tempore Judgment After on Site Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether departure from the second floor front setback to Roslyn Street created an unacceptable streetscape impact.' 'Whether departure from the side ground floor setback was acceptable.' 'Whether the landscaped private open space for each dwelling was acceptable, considering rear setback requirements and proposed dimensions.' 'Whether departure from the minimum site width requirement was acceptable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed dual occupancy was permissible with consent and the departures from DCP 14 controls for second floor front setback, side ground floor setback, private open space dimensions and minimum site width were justified because, on the site evidence, they did not cause unacceptable streetscape, amenity, privacy, open space or neighbour impacts and the relevant DCP objectives were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application No: R722/03 approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application No: R722/03 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and the construction of an additional attached dwelling to create an attached two-storey dual occupancy development at 17 Ayr Street, Ashbury is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'The...