Clissold v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 310

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Clissold v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 310 APPLICANT Roger Clissold PARTIES : RESPONDENT Manly Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10304 of 2004 CORAM: Bly C KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- loss of privacy - overshadowing - overbearing bulk and scale - building height and setbacks LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 79 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 07/06/04 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/07/2004

APPLICANT Mr T Howard, barrister

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr R Graham, solicitor SOLICITORS Abbott Tout

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Bly C

7 June 2004

10304 of 2004 Roger Clissold v Manly Council

JUDGMENT 1 The introductory material in this judgement, which was delivered extemporaneously on-site, has been extracted from the statement of basic facts tendered as exhibit 2 at the hearing. 2 The appeal relates to Development Application No 24/03 for the demolition of an existing weatherboard dwelling house at No 7 Willyama Avenue, Fairlight and the erection of a new two-storey building comprising two, two-bedroom dwellings. 3 The site, being Lot A, DP 335776 is located on the southern side of Willyama Avenue between Rosedale Avenue and Lauderdale Avenue. It has an area of some 529 sq m. The locality in which the site is located comprises a mixture of dwelling houses and residential flat buildings. Statutory provisions 4 The site is situated in the Residential Zone under Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988("the LEP"). It is also located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. 5 Also applicable is Manly Council's Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001 ("the DCP"). Advertising and Council's decision 6 The application was notified to adjoining property owners and residents and advertised in a local newspaper. It was also referred to the Fairlight Precinct Committee for comments. In response, five letters of objection were received. Included in the objections were letters from Mr. and Mrs. H Holmes of 84 Lauderdale Ave. and Mr. and Mrs. Timpson of 80 Lauderdale Ave. who gave oral evidence when the Court visited their properties, emphasizing their concerns in relation to loss of privacy, excessive overshadowing and excessive building bulk. 7 The application was refused at Council's Land Use Management Committee meeting on 4 Aug 2003 for reasons relating to: unsatisfactory density, floor space ratio, wall height, setbacks and privacy requirements; impacts on the Willyama streetscape; undesirable precedent for future development; and adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties. 8 A subsequent review of the application including renotification of revised plans resulted in the application being again refused for similar reasons to those referred to above.