Tylina Operations Pty Limited v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 519

Tylina Operations Pty Limited v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 519

Unit 12 should be retained because, viewed from Carlton Street and Pittwater Road, its height, setback and separation from the taller corner tower, together with the backdrop of larger buildings and the proposal's improvement over the existing intrusive development, meant that its retention was consistent with good planning and the objectives of the relevant draft development control plan. The objector's concerns about privacy, bulk, scale, views and headlights did not warrant alteration or refusal, and the agreed SEPP 1 objection concerning setbacks from Pittwater Road was sustained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing; Matter Listed for Mention for Amended Plans and Conditions
Outcome
The Court indicated the development application ought be permitted with Unit 12 retained, sustained the SEPP 1 objection, granted leave for agreed amendments, and listed the matter for mention pending amended plans and agreed conditions.
Legal Topics
['deemed Refusal of Development Application' 'townhouses and Residential Flats' 'setbacks From Arterial Road' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection' 'development Control Plans' 'height, Bulk and Scale' 'residential Privacy and View 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 Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing; Matter Listed for Mention for Amended Plans and Conditions

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed Unit 12 on the Carlton Street frontage should be deleted from the development proposal.' 'Whether the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection concerning setbacks from Pittwater Road should be sustained.' 'Whether objections concerning views, bulk and scale, aesthetics, privacy and vehicle headlights warranted alteration or refusal of the proposal.' "Whether the development, including Unit 12, made an acceptable planning contribution when assessed against the council's planning controls and urban design guidelines."]

Ratio Decidendi

Unit 12 should be retained because, viewed from Carlton Street and Pittwater Road, its height, setback and separation from the taller corner tower, together with the backdrop of larger buildings and the proposal's improvement over the existing intrusive development, meant that its retention was consistent with good planning and the objectives of the relevant draft development control plan. The objector's concerns about privacy, bulk, scale, views and headlights did not warrant alteration or refusal, and the agreed SEPP 1 objection concerning setbacks from Pittwater Road was sustained.

Court Disposition

The Court indicated the development application ought be permitted with Unit 12 retained, sustained the SEPP 1 objection, granted leave for agreed amendments, and listed the matter for mention pending amended plans and agreed conditions.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the applicant to delete matters relating to subdivision and confine the appeal to approval of structures.' 'Leave granted to amend the application to incorporate external finishes plan EF01.' 'The SEPP 1 objection relating to setbacks from Pittwater Road is to be sustained.' 'The matter is listed...