Pafburn v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWLEC 444

Pafburn v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWLEC 444

The SEPP 1 objection to the height development standard was not well founded because the non-complying portion of the proposed five-storey building would cause a significant loss of 1 hour and 30 minutes of mid-winter sunlight to the living and dining room windows of a third-floor apartment at 191-195 Walker Street, contrary to the height standard objective of maintaining solar access. The proposal therefore could not be approved in its present form, although it was capable of amendment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Judgment Following Hearing; Directions Made for Further Timetable
Outcome
The proposal could not be approved in its present form, but the application was not dismissed and the applicant was given an opportunity to amend it.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'building Height Development Standard' 'overshadowing' 'solar Access' 'residential Flat Building' 'impact on Neighbouring Properties']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'building Height Development Standard' 'overshadowing' 'solar Access' 'residential Flat Building' 'impact on 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Judgment Following Hearing; Directions Made for Further Timetable

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether non-compliance with the 12m height control was justified by a well-founded SEPP 1 objection.' 'Whether the internal amenity, particularly solar access to proposed dwellings, was acceptable.' 'Whether the survival of the Norfolk Island Pine on 199 Walker Street close to the access ramp was sufficiently assured.' 'Whether SEPP 1 objections to the Building Height Plane and Landscaped Area standards were well founded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objection to the height development standard was not well founded because the non-complying portion of the proposed five-storey building would cause a significant loss of 1 hour and 30 minutes of mid-winter sunlight to the living and dining room windows of a third-floor apartment at 191-195 Walker Street, contrary to the height standard objective of maintaining solar access. The proposal therefore could not be approved in its present form, although it was capable of amendment.

Court Disposition

The proposal could not be approved in its present form, but the application was not dismissed and the applicant was given an opportunity to amend it.

Orders

  • ['The Court directs the parties to approach the Registrar with a timetable for progressing this matter by eCourt before 23 August 2005, if they reach agreement.' 'The Court directs the parties to approach the Registrar with a timetable for progressing this matter at the callover on 23 August 2005, if they do not...