Carey V North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 174

Carey V North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 174

The topmost level of each proposed development, described as 'attics', are not wholly contained within the roof space and therefore are not excluded from the definition of 'storey' under LEP cl 5(1). The proposals consist of buildings with more than two storeys, prohibited under LEP cl 12(1), and as there is no valid SEPP 1 objection, development consent cannot be granted.

Parties
Applicant: Marion Carey; Applicant: Mark Carey; Applicant: Ian Carey; Applicant: Grace Carey; Respondent: North Sydney Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; development consent refused.
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Storey Definition, Overdevelopment, Streetscape Impact, Amenity of Neighbouring Properties
Planning and Environment Development Consent Storey Definition Overdevelopment Streetscape Impact Amenity of Neighbouring Properties

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marion Carey

Applicant

Mark Carey

Applicant

Ian Carey

Applicant

Grace Carey

Applicant

North Sydney Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether attic level is excepted from 'storey' definition under LEP
  2. 2 Whether proposed developments involve overdevelopment
  3. 3 Effect on streetscape

Ratio Decidendi

The topmost level of each proposed development, described as 'attics', are not wholly contained within the roof space and therefore are not excluded from the definition of 'storey' under LEP cl 5(1). The proposals consist of buildings with more than two storeys, prohibited under LEP cl 12(1), and as there is no valid SEPP 1 objection, development consent cannot be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; development consent refused.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • Development consent be refused.