Harrison v Manly Council [2005] NSWLEC 368

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Harrison v Manly Council [2005] NSWLEC 368

Applicant: Gregory Harrison PARTIES : Respondent: Manly Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 10481 of 2005

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- privacy of neighbour

DATES OF HEARING: 07/07/2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 07/07/2005

Applicant: Mr M Staunton, solicitor of Staunton Beattie LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Mr R Graham of Abbott Tout

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

7 July 2005

10481 of 2005 Gregory Harrison v Manly Council

JUDGMENT 1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Manly Council (the council) of a development application to construct a window in the western wall of the main bedroom of No 26 Edgecliffe Esplanade, Seaforth. 2 The window would face the front yard of the adjoining property to the west, No 28, and would have an oblique view of the rear yard. The owners of No 28, Mr and Mrs Douglas, object on the grounds of loss of privacy. 3 I have inspected the two properties. The impact on the rear garden would be minor, since the window is not close and the view from it oblique. It would, however, be an additional window of which a person in the rear yard is aware. The impact on the front veranda would be greater, particularly on the eastern end, where the proposed window would be only a few metres away from a table and chairs. 4 I note that the veranda of No 28 faces the street and therefore its existing level of privacy is reduced. There is a reasonably big setback, so that the veranda is not greatly exposed to public view. 5 The main bedroom of No 26 has an all-glass wall and sliding door to the south and the view. It has highlight glazing to the west, which includes one opening window for ventilation. The applicant contends that it needs the window for additional ventilation and wants it also for additional view. As stated before, the bedroom has a sliding door as well as the opening highlight. The proportion of openings to floor area in this room is very high. I do not take into account the applicant's reluctance to open the sliding door for security reasons. There is a method of locking sliding doors in an open position leaving only a slit that allows air in but prevents a person from entering. Moreover, if the applicant wishes to increase ventilation to the west, there would be no objection to turning the fixed highlight glazing into windows. As concerns the additional view, the bedroom is already provided with magnificent views. 6 In essence this is a window that would have a moderate impact, but it is unnecessary, so even a moderate impact is unjustified. The appeal is therefore dismissed.