Aitken v Manly Council [2007] NSWLEC 325

Aitken v Manly Council [2007] NSWLEC 325

The condition originally proposed by the Council, requiring removal of 16 sq m from the first level without nominating the portions of the building from which that area was to be removed, was inappropriate for uncertainty and would probably offend the principles in Mison v Randwick City Council; on that basis the proposed consent orders amending the consent should be upheld.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal Pursuant to S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal to Grant an Amendment to a Development Consent / Extempore Judgment on Proposed Consent Orders
Outcome
Proposed consent orders upheld; existing development consent amended subject to amended detailed conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Consent Modification' 'removal of Condition' 'uncertainty of Condition' 'floor Space Ratio']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent Modification' 'removal of Condition' 'uncertainty of Condition' 'floor Space Ratio']

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 Pursuant to S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal to Grant an Amendment to a Development Consent / Extempore Judgment on Proposed Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed consent orders modifying development consent 69/2006 should be made' 'Whether a condition requiring removal of 16 sq m from the first floor of the proposed dwelling was inappropriate for uncertainty']

Ratio Decidendi

The condition originally proposed by the Council, requiring removal of 16 sq m from the first level without nominating the portions of the building from which that area was to be removed, was inappropriate for uncertainty and would probably offend the principles in Mison v Randwick City Council; on that basis the proposed consent orders amending the consent should be upheld.

Court Disposition

Proposed consent orders upheld; existing development consent amended subject to amended detailed conditions.

Orders

  • ['Development consent 69/2006 is amended subject to amended detailed conditions.' 'The proposed consent orders are upheld.']