Lend Lease Development Pty Limited -V- Manly Council [1999] NSWLEC 3

Lend Lease Development Pty Limited -V- Manly Council [1999] NSWLEC 3

The modification application was refused because the Court accepted that preservation and protection of the natural gully required a buffer zone of 10 metres in width, but the proposed configuration of new lot 6 could not achieve that buffer without substantial encroachment into the lot, leaving the gully exposed to unacceptable environmental impact.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for Modification of a Development Consent / Determination of Modification Application
Outcome
Application for modification refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'substantially the Same Development' 'environmental Impact on Drainage Gully' 'riparian Buffer Zone' 'residential Amenity and Privacy']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent Modification' 'subdivision'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'substantially the Same Development' 'environmental Impact on Drainage Gully' 'riparian Buffer Zone' 'residential Amenity and Privacy']

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

Application Under S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for Modification of a Development Consent / Determination of Modification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the new lot 6 would have an adverse environmental impact upon the adjacent drainage gully.' 'Whether, in accordance with s 96(2)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development the subject of the consent as modified was substantially the same development.' 'Whether the new lot 6 would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property at 35 Bower Street.']

Ratio Decidendi

The modification application was refused because the Court accepted that preservation and protection of the natural gully required a buffer zone of 10 metres in width, but the proposed configuration of new lot 6 could not achieve that buffer without substantial encroachment into the lot, leaving the gully exposed to unacceptable environmental impact.

Court Disposition

Application for modification refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for modification of the development consent granted on 26 February 1997 is determined by refusal of consent.' 'The exhibits may be returned.' 'I make no order as to costs.']