Quarantine Investments Co Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2013] NSWLEC 1222

Quarantine Investments Co Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2013] NSWLEC 1222

The Court found that the proposal is not inconsistent with the aims of the Harbour SREP and will not have any adverse impacts, as any effect on public domain views is minor and noise impacts are addressed by a trial period with monitoring. The impact on heritage values is also minimal and an exemption from further heritage approval has already been granted.

Parties
Applicant: Quarantine Investments Co Pty Ltd; Respondent: Manly Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application approved with conditions and trial period for extended hours
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Heritage, Noise, Public Domain Views
Planning Law Environmental Law Development Consent Heritage Noise Public Domain Views

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quarantine Investments Co Pty Ltd

Applicant

Manly Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Application Appeal / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed extension of the awning, installation of roll down clear blinds, and extension of trading hours at Manly Wharf Hotel should be approved in light of impacts on harbour views from the public domain and alleged noise impacts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the proposal is not inconsistent with the aims of the Harbour SREP and will not have any adverse impacts, as any effect on public domain views is minor and noise impacts are addressed by a trial period with monitoring. The impact on heritage values is also minimal and an exemption from further heritage approval has already been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application approved with conditions and trial period for extended hours

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • Development Application No. 216/2012 for an extension to the awning over the eastern deck, roll down clear blinds to enclose the deck and a trial period of extended trading hours on the eastern deck is approved, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.