Ellison v Kiama Municipal Council [2007] NSWLEC 709
The proposed development, although contravening the two storey standard, satisfies the underlying planning objectives, does not adversely affect bulk, scale, height, or visual amenity, and the SEPP 1 objection is well founded; the appeal is upheld and the height limitation is varied.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 October 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under S 97 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld
- Legal Topics
- ['development Consent' 'height Restrictions' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'storeys Control' 'bulk and Scale' 'swimming Pool']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the two storey limit in clause 50 of Kiama Local Environmental Plan 1996 should be strictly applied or varied via SEPP 1 objection' 'Whether the proposed development adversely impacts bulk, scale, height, or visual appearance' 'Precedential effect of permitting the third storey']
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed development, although contravening the two storey standard, satisfies the underlying planning objectives, does not adversely affect bulk, scale, height, or visual amenity, and the SEPP 1 objection is well founded; the appeal is upheld and the height limitation is varied.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld
Orders
- ['The appeal in respect of 82 North Kiama Drive, Kiama is upheld.' 'The SEPP 1 objection to vary the two storey height limitation in clause 50 Kiama LEP 1996 is allowed.' "The development application for an additional level of living and a swimming pool is approved subject to conditions contained in Annexure 'A'."...
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