Sky Design & Concepts Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2008] NSWLEC 1170

Sky Design & Concepts Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2008] NSWLEC 1170

The proposal failed to achieve reasonable compliance with the objectives of the applicable planning instruments and controls, and its bulk, height, site coverage and form would cause unacceptable impacts on the foreshore protection area, scenic character, vegetation context, and the neighbouring property at No. 222 in relation to privacy, amenity, view sharing, shadowing and solar access. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Development Application for an Addition to an Existing Building to Complete a 4 Storey House / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal' 'building Envelope Control' 'desired Future Character' 'scenic Protection' 'view Sharing' 'shadow Impacts' 'solar Access' 'privacy Impacts' 'height Control' 'site Coverage' 'environmentally Sensitive Land' 'landscaping']
['environmental Planning and Development' 'land and Environment' 'local Government'] ['development Application Refusal' 'building Envelope Control' 'desired Future Character' 'scenic Protection' 'view Sharing' 'shadow Impacts' 'solar Access' 'privacy Impacts' 'height Control' 'site Coverage' 'environmentally Sensitive Land' 'landscaping']

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

Class 1 Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Development Application for an Addition to an Existing Building to Complete a 4 Storey House / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proposed addition to an existing building at No. 220 McCarr's Creek Rd should be approved despite non-compliance with planning controls." 'Whether exceptions to numeric controls were reasonable on a small, narrow and steep allotment.' 'Whether the proposal caused unacceptable impacts on landscaping, building envelope, desired future character, scenic protection, view sharing, shadowing, solar access, privacy, height and site coverage.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal failed to achieve reasonable compliance with the objectives of the applicable planning instruments and controls, and its bulk, height, site coverage and form would cause unacceptable impacts on the foreshore protection area, scenic character, vegetation context, and the neighbouring property at No. 222 in relation to privacy, amenity, view sharing, shadowing and solar access. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The exhibits are returned to the parties except Exhibits 2, A & B.']