Tricon Services Group Pty Ltd v Manly Council (No.3) [2012] NSWLEC 1145

Tricon Services Group Pty Ltd v Manly Council (No.3) [2012] NSWLEC 1145

The applicant’s proposed development exceeds the 10 m (front) and 12 m (rear) height controls specified on the height control map in the Business DCP. The exceptions in cl 1.2.1(ii) are not engaged, as a compliant development would not create unacceptable townscape impact. No new evidence altered the prior findings that the proposal causes unacceptable view loss and contravenes relevant planning objectives. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and development consent is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Remitted Hearing After Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'height Controls' 'town Planning' 'view Loss' 'interpretation of Development Control Plans']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['development Applications' 'height Controls' 'town Planning' 'view Loss' 'interpretation of Development Control Plans']

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 Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Remitted Hearing After Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development breaches applicable height controls under the Business DCP' 'Whether exceeding height controls is justifiable by townscape objectives' 'Assessment of view loss to adjoining properties' "Consistency and reasonableness of Council's previous height assessments"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant’s proposed development exceeds the 10 m (front) and 12 m (rear) height controls specified on the height control map in the Business DCP. The exceptions in cl 1.2.1(ii) are not engaged, as a compliant development would not create unacceptable townscape impact. No new evidence altered the prior findings that the proposal causes unacceptable view loss and contravenes relevant planning objectives. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and development consent is refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'DA13/2010 for the demolition of all existing improvements and the construction of a mixed commercial/residential development at 46, 47 and 48 North Steyne, Manly is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibit 1.']