Hain v Pittwater Council [2013] NSWLEC 1155

Hain v Pittwater Council [2013] NSWLEC 1155

No screening is required on the balustrade as the privacy of the adjoining open space is sufficiently protected, the likely placement of furniture restricts regular viewing, the area impacted is minor, substantial open space exists beyond the 9m limit, viewing is not regular due to expansive ocean views, and the loss of views caused by the screen would be excessive compared to the minor potential overlooking.

Parties
Applicant: Paul Steven Hain; Respondent: Pittwater Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Modification Application, Privacy Screen Condition, Visual Privacy, Development Consent

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Steven Hain

Applicant

Pittwater Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether condition requiring privacy screen is justified
  2. 2 Loss of privacy to adjoining property

Ratio Decidendi

No screening is required on the balustrade as the privacy of the adjoining open space is sufficiently protected, the likely placement of furniture restricts regular viewing, the area impacted is minor, substantial open space exists beyond the 9m limit, viewing is not regular due to expansive ocean views, and the loss of views caused by the screen would be excessive compared to the minor potential overlooking.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The modification application to delete condition B19 of Development Consent N0349/09 for the construction of a new dwelling with swimming pool at 75 Bungan Head Road, Newport is determined by the deletion of condition B19.