Jordan v North Sydney Council [2003] NSWLEC 438

Jordan v North Sydney Council [2003] NSWLEC 438

The appeal was allowed because the amended proposal would not cause material loss of views or increased overshadowing to the adjoining property, the limited loss of sky view did not warrant refusal, the SEPP 1 objection to the building height plane breach should be upheld, and the proposal was satisfactory in its conservation area context subject to agreed conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'development Consent' 'building Height Plane' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection' 'overshadowing' 'views' 'heritage Conservation Area']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'development Consent' 'building Height Plane' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection' 'overshadowing' 'views' 'heritage Conservation Area']

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 / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development consent should be granted for a new roof and alterations and additions to a rear building at 50 Hayberry Street, Crows Nest.' 'Whether the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1–Development Standards should be upheld in relation to non-compliance with the building height plane in cl 18 of the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2001.' 'Whether the proposed roof would cause material loss of views, increased overshadowing, loss of amenity, or unacceptable heritage impacts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the amended proposal would not cause material loss of views or increased overshadowing to the adjoining property, the limited loss of sky view did not warrant refusal, the SEPP 1 objection to the building height plane breach should be upheld, and the proposal was satisfactory in its conservation area context subject to agreed conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'Development consent is granted for alterations and additions to the rear building at 50 Hayberry Street, Crows Nest, subject to the conditions in Annexure A hereto.' 'The exhibits, other than exhibits A, 4 and C, may be returned.']