Tenacity Investments v Ku-ring-gai Council [2006] NSWLEC 649

Tenacity Investments v Ku-ring-gai Council [2006] NSWLEC 649

The additional level 6 floor area was refused because the site was at a sensitive zone interface adjoining vulnerable low-density properties, including properties in a hollow to the south of the proposed building. Although the added impact would not be major, part of the extension would be visible and would add to an impact already at the limit of tolerability. There was little justification for seeking to increase the building bulk shortly after accepting the amendments approved in May 2006, and a high level of internal amenity could be achieved within the approved envelope. The internal alterations were unobjectionable, and the disputed conditions were not shown to warrant the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Amend a Development Consent / Determination After Hearing
Outcome
Application approved in part; internal alterations approved, additional floor on level 6 refused, and conditions amended as shown in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['s 96 Application' 'modification of Development Consent' 'zone Interface' 'residential Development' 'bulk and Visual Impact' 'conditions of Consent']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land Use Planning'] ['s 96 Application' 'modification of Development Consent' 'zone Interface' 'residential Development' 'bulk and Visual Impact' 'conditions of 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Amend a Development Consent / Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether internal alterations to the approved development should be approved.' 'Whether additional floor area on level 6 should be approved.' 'Whether disputed conditions of consent should be amended or deleted.' 'Whether the proposed modification would add unacceptable bulk and visual impact at a zone interface with low-density housing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The additional level 6 floor area was refused because the site was at a sensitive zone interface adjoining vulnerable low-density properties, including properties in a hollow to the south of the proposed building. Although the added impact would not be major, part of the extension would be visible and would add to an impact already at the limit of tolerability. There was little justification for seeking to increase the building bulk shortly after accepting the amendments approved in May 2006, and a high level of internal amenity could be achieved within the approved envelope. The internal alterations were unobjectionable, and the disputed conditions were not shown to warrant the...

Court Disposition

Application approved in part; internal alterations approved, additional floor on level 6 refused, and conditions amended as shown in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The application under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend a development consent granted by this Court on 2 May 2006 to an application to demolish the existing structures and erect four townhouses and a seven-level residential flat building on lots 1 and 2 DP 220159 (known as 2-4...