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. Orders 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Development application to construct a window in the western wall of the main bedroom of No 26 Edgecliffe Esplanade, Seaforth is determined by refusal. 3. The exhibits are returned. _________________ Dr John Roseth Senior Commissioner DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.