Manderrah Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council and Anor [2013] NSWLEC 1196

Manderrah Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council and Anor [2013] NSWLEC 1196

The appeal failed because the applicant did not establish a well founded SEPP 1 objection to the non-compliance with cl 40(4) of SEPP 2004. The Court found that the mansard level would read as a habitable floor, the height and number of storeys were incompatible with the adjoining residential neighbourhood and special qualities of the streetscape, the rear 25% non-compliance would adversely affect the amenity and outlook of adjoining properties, and the objectives of cl 40(4)(a), (b) and (c) were not achieved. Because the SEPP 1 objection was not well founded, the application could not be approved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Principal Judgment After Hearing, Following Termination of a Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Reliance on Amended Plans
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['seniors Living Development' 'sepp 1 Objection to Height Control' 'height, Storeys, Bulk and Scale' 'heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Area' 'excavation and Construction Impacts' 'traffic Impacts' 'groundwater Impacts']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent' 'heritage Conservation'] ['seniors Living Development' 'sepp 1 Objection to Height Control' 'height, Storeys, Bulk and Scale' 'heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Area' 'excavation and Construction Impacts' 'traffic Impacts' 'groundwater Impacts']

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

Class 1 Appeal Under S 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Principal Judgment After Hearing, Following Termination of a Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Reliance on Amended Plans

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the SEPP 1 objection to cl 40(4) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 was well founded.' 'Whether the proposed height, number of storeys, bulk and scale were compatible with the adjoining residential neighbourhood and streetscape.' 'Whether the proposal would retain, complement and sensitively harmonise with heritage items and the Woollahra Heritage Conservation Area.' 'Whether traffic impacts in Morton Lane warranted refusal.' 'Whether excavation and groundwater impacts had been adequately assessed and could be managed by conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the applicant did not establish a well founded SEPP 1 objection to the non-compliance with cl 40(4) of SEPP 2004. The Court found that the mansard level would read as a habitable floor, the height and number of storeys were incompatible with the adjoining residential neighbourhood and special qualities of the streetscape, the rear 25% non-compliance would adversely affect the amenity and outlook of adjoining properties, and the objectives of cl 40(4)(a), (b) and (c) were not achieved. Because the SEPP 1 objection was not well founded, the application could not be approved.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The development application for alterations and additions to an existing heritage item, demolition of an existing building and construction of a new infill self care housing development at 119-121 Queen Street, Woollahra, is refused.' 'The exhibits, except Exhibits 8, R8 and R, may be...