Brodie v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 573

Brodie v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 573

The proposed dwelling's siting and bulk would extend substantially into the rear open space area, place built form close to adjoining properties, require screening for privacy, affect outlook and views from 38 Jones Road, and fail to achieve appropriate view sharing where alternate locations were possible. The rationale for the chosen location did not warrant those impacts, so the proposal was not designed having adequate regard to adjoining development and the rural character of the area. Because the swimming pool and water tank application depended on the dwelling location, both appeals were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeals / Appeals Against Refusal by Baulkham Hills Shire Council of Development Applications for a Single Storey Dwelling and for a Swimming Pool and Water Tank
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed and both development applications refused.
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'rural Residential Development' 'amenity Impacts' 'streetscape' 'setbacks' 'view Loss' 'privacy Impacts']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land Use Planning'] ['development Applications' 'rural Residential Development' 'amenity Impacts' 'streetscape' 'setbacks' 'view Loss' 'privacy Impacts']

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

Development Application Appeals / Appeals Against Refusal by Baulkham Hills Shire Council of Development Applications for a Single Storey Dwelling and for a Swimming Pool and Water Tank

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the siting of the proposed dwelling had an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, particularly in relation to setbacks, loss of views and privacy impacts.' 'Whether the proposal was designed having adequate regard to adjoining development and the rural character of the area.' 'Whether the dependent application for a swimming pool and water tank should be approved if the dwelling appeal failed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed dwelling's siting and bulk would extend substantially into the rear open space area, place built form close to adjoining properties, require screening for privacy, affect outlook and views from 38 Jones Road, and fail to achieve appropriate view sharing where alternate locations were possible. The rationale for the chosen location did not warrant those impacts, so the proposal was not designed having adequate regard to adjoining development and the rural character of the area. Because the swimming pool and water tank application depended on the dwelling location, both appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed and both development applications refused.

Orders

  • ['In Appeal No. 10550 of 2007, the appeal is dismissed.' 'In Appeal No. 10550 of 2007, the development application (DA 1288/2007/MS) for a single storey dwelling at 38A Jones Road, Kenthurst is refused.' 'In Appeal No. 10550 of 2007, the exhibits except Exhibit 1 may be returned.' 'In Appeal No. 10549 of 2007, the...