Moore v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWLEC 1379

Moore v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWLEC 1379

The proposal, as amended, reasonably and equitably retains sunlight access to the affected solar panels, adequately meets the objectives of the relevant planning controls, and responds to heritage, privacy, and bulk concerns. Strict adherence to the six-hour solar access rule is not warranted in the circumstances, and flexibility is permitted by s 4.15(3A)(b) of the EPA Act.

Parties
First Applicant: Daniel Alexander Moore; Second Applicant: Susan Margaret Moore; Respondent: Northern Beaches Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Contested Merits Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Development Application, Dual Occupancy, Solar Access, Overshadowing, Visual Privacy, Visual Bulk, Heritage Impact, Streetscape, Tree Removal
Planning and Environment Development Application Dual Occupancy Solar Access Overshadowing Visual Privacy Visual Bulk Heritage Impact +2 more

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Alexander Moore

First Applicant

Susan Margaret Moore

Second Applicant

Northern Beaches Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Contested Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Impact of proposed development on solar collectors (solar panels) of adjoining property
  2. 2 Overshadowing and solar access compliance with planning controls
  3. 3 Visual privacy and overlooking concerns

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal, as amended, reasonably and equitably retains sunlight access to the affected solar panels, adequately meets the objectives of the relevant planning controls, and responds to heritage, privacy, and bulk concerns. Strict adherence to the six-hour solar access rule is not warranted in the circumstances, and flexibility is permitted by s 4.15(3A)(b) of the EPA Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA2021/1991 for demolition works and construction of a dual occupancy development including strata subdivision at 12 Birkley Road, Manly being Lot 5 Sec 12 in DP 2428, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.