Longstaff v Ku-ring-gai Council [2009] NSWLEC 1090
Although the garage does not comply with the predominant setback pattern or the car parking requirement that it be located behind the building line, its visual impact is not unreasonable due to variable setbacks in the streetscape, mitigating landscaping, and the limited viewing positions. Subject to minor...
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal upheld
- Legal Topics
- ['modification Application' 'garage Setback' 'streetscape' 'heritage Considerations']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the proposed modification to the garage setback complies with the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance and the Residential Design Manual - Development Control Plan No. 38' 'Impact on streetscape and heritage significance']
Ratio Decidendi
Although the garage does not comply with the predominant setback pattern or the car parking requirement that it be located behind the building line, its visual impact is not unreasonable due to variable setbacks in the streetscape, mitigating landscaping, and the limited viewing positions. Subject to minor modifications (increased setback, dual garage doors), the modification application may be approved.
Court Disposition
appeal upheld
Orders
- ['Development consent DA 0132/08 is amended as described, including changes to plans, garage dimensions/setback (now 13.1 m), dual garage doors, and deletion of Condition 16.' 'Exhibit A is retained.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment