Farrell Coyne v Woollahra Council [2008] NSWLEC 1387

Farrell Coyne v Woollahra Council [2008] NSWLEC 1387

Applying the view sharing principle in Tenacity, the Court held that the affected view of Shark Island was valuable but was a sitting view, the loss was moderate because standing views and other significant views from the bedroom level and roof terrace would remain, and the proposal was reasonable because it was well below the 9.5m height limit and had only one level above Gilliver Avenue. Lowering the proposal by 1.2m would reduce the applicant's amenity, and there was no justification to require that change. The view impact was acceptable and the appeal was upheld.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Appeal Against Deemed Refusal Determined After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'view Impact' 'view Sharing' 'floor Space Ratio' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'development Standards']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'view Impact' 'view Sharing' 'floor Space Ratio' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'development Standards']

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

Development Application Appeal / Appeal Against Deemed Refusal Determined After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the height, bulk and scale of the proposed three-storey dwelling house would have an unacceptable impact on views from neighbouring properties, particularly views of Shark Island from 3 Gilliver Avenue.' 'Whether the proposal should be required to be lowered by 1.2m to preserve neighbouring views.' 'Whether the non-compliance with the maximum floor space ratio affected the assessment of view impact.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the view sharing principle in Tenacity, the Court held that the affected view of Shark Island was valuable but was a sitting view, the loss was moderate because standing views and other significant views from the bedroom level and roof terrace would remain, and the proposal was reasonable because it was well below the 9.5m height limit and had only one level above Gilliver Avenue. Lowering the proposal by 1.2m would reduce the applicant's amenity, and there was no justification to require that change. The view impact was acceptable and the appeal was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application to demolish the existing building and erect a three-storey dwelling house on lot 1 DP 958468, known as 2A Gilliver Avenue, Vaucluse is determined by the grant of approval subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'The exhibits are returned except Exhibits 10, A and C.']