Mackenzie v Warringah Council [2002] NSWLEC 131
The appeal was upheld because the proposed rear residential buildings were not apartment buildings and the proposal fell within the broad permissible category of housing under Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2000. Although the proposal departed from several development standards, the departures were minor or acceptable on the site-specific evidence and the development remained consistent with the general principles of development control and the desired future character of the G7 locality. The objector concerns and Council’s planning objections did not justify refusal, and the subdivision was allowed because the resulting allotments would contain buildings approved by the Court under...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 August 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Development Application Appeal / Appeal Against Deemed Refusal and Later Refusal of Development Application No. 2001/993 DA
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; Development Application No. 2001/993DA approved subject to conditions in Annexure A; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['development Consent' 'warringah Local Environmental Plan 2000' 'desired Future Character Statement' 'development Standards' 'subdivision' 'housing Density' 'building Height' 'landscaped Open Space' 'protection of Existing Flora']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Appeal Against Deemed Refusal and Later Refusal of Development Application No. 2001/993 DA
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the proposed development was consistent with the desired future character statement for the G7 Innes Road locality.' 'Whether the rear residential buildings were apartment buildings and therefore confined to medium density areas.' 'Whether departures from development standards for housing density, building height, rear setback, side boundary envelope and side setback, and landscaped open space were acceptable.' 'Whether the proposal satisfied the general principles of development control concerning natural features, sloping land, protection of existing flora, access to sunlight, building bulk, landscaped open space, site facilities and landfill.' 'Whether matters raised by objectors, including traffic, safety, parking, loss of trees, character, density and driveway noise, justified refusal.' 'Whether the land could be subdivided under cl 21 of Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2000.']
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was upheld because the proposed rear residential buildings were not apartment buildings and the proposal fell within the broad permissible category of housing under Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2000. Although the proposal departed from several development standards, the departures were minor or acceptable on the site-specific evidence and the development remained consistent with the general principles of development control and the desired future character of the G7 locality. The objector concerns and Council’s planning objections did not justify refusal, and the subdivision was allowed because the resulting allotments would contain buildings approved by the Court under...
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; Development Application No. 2001/993DA approved subject to conditions in Annexure A; no order as to costs.
Orders
- ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application No. 2001/993DA is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'The exhibits be returned with the exception of Exhibits 20, H, and Y.' 'No order as to costs.']
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