Drew Dickinson Architects v Manly Council [2005] NSWLEC 569

Drew Dickinson Architects v Manly Council [2005] NSWLEC 569

The Court found that, with the addition of privacy screens with a minimum height of 1.8m and revised balcony plans including divider/planter boxes, the modifications addressed privacy concerns and satisfied the relevant DCP provisions, making the s 96 modification allowable.

Parties
Applicant: Drew Dickinson Architects; Respondent: Manly Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Section 96 Modification / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Modification of Development Consent, Residential Development, Privacy and Amenity, Balcony Design
Planning and Environment Modification of Development Consent Residential Development Privacy and Amenity Balcony Design

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drew Dickinson Architects

Applicant

Manly Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Section 96 Modification / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed modifications relate to substantially the same development
  2. 2 Whether modifications cause unreasonable loss of privacy or amenity to adjoining properties
  3. 3 Whether modifications comply with the Manly Residential Development Control Plan 2001

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that, with the addition of privacy screens with a minimum height of 1.8m and revised balcony plans including divider/planter boxes, the modifications addressed privacy concerns and satisfied the relevant DCP provisions, making the s 96 modification allowable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The section 96 Modification of DA No. 444/03 at 7 Brighton Street, Balgowlah, is allowed subject to additional conditions 88-94, in Annexure A.