Luxe Manly Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2016] NSWLEC 1167

Luxe Manly Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2016] NSWLEC 1167

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed development was not consistent with objective (b) of the building height development standard, namely, to control the bulk and scale of buildings. The uppermost level of the Eastern building presented additional, unmitigated bulk to the adjoining property and did not adopt increased setback/stepback at the uppermost levels, contrary to both the DCP and desired future character as expressed in the LEP. The requirements of cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) were not met, so consent could not be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal (class 1) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Development Application refused; Orders for costs relating to amendments granted
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'building Height Standard' 'view Loss' 'setbacks' 'bulk and Scale' 'privacy' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'manly Local Environmental Plan 2013' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 65']
['environmental and Planning Law'] ['development Application' 'building Height Standard' 'view Loss' 'setbacks' 'bulk and Scale' 'privacy' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'manly Local Environmental Plan 2013' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 65']

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

Development Appeal (class 1) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to amend the development application' 'Whether the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height development standard in cl 4.3 of the Manly LEP 2013' 'Whether cl 4.6 variation to the height development standard should be upheld' 'Whether the development would result in unacceptable impacts on views, bulk, scale, setbacks, privacy, and landscaping' 'Whether consent should be granted for the development']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed development was not consistent with objective (b) of the building height development standard, namely, to control the bulk and scale of buildings. The uppermost level of the Eastern building presented additional, unmitigated bulk to the adjoining property and did not adopt increased setback/stepback at the uppermost levels, contrary to both the DCP and desired future character as expressed in the LEP. The requirements of cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) were not met, so consent could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Development Application refused; Orders for costs relating to amendments granted

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the applicant to amend the development application to rely on the further amended plans filed on 8 March 2016 (as listed)' "Order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs thrown away as a consequence of the amendments in the sum of $1 for the 8 March 2016 amendments" "Order that the applicant...