Wisdom v Sutherland Shire Council

Case

[2005] NSWLEC 656

11/17/2005

No judgment structure available for this case.


Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION:

Wisdom v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 656

PARTIES:

Applicant:
Clive Wisdom

Respondent:
Sutherland Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10591 of 2005

CORAM:

Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- privacy

DATES OF HEARING: 17/11/2005
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

11/17/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

Applicant:
Mr M Ball, agent

Mr A Markham, council solicitor


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Roseth SC

      17 November 2005

      10591 of 2005 Clive Wisdom v Sutherland Shire Council

      JUDGMENT

1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Sutherland Shire Council (the council) of a development application to modify Development Consent 04/0417. That consent approved a first-floor addition to the existing single-storey house on the site. The amendment seeks to extend the rear balcony to the full width of the first floor. The parties have reached agreement and seek consent orders.

2 The main issue in the case is the privacy of three properties, 1/18, 2/18 and 20 Alkaringa Road, Miranda. The applicant has amended the proposal by adding privacy screens to a height of 1.7m so that there will be no outlook towards No 20 and the rear yards of Nos 1/18 and 2/18. The owner of No 20 has declared himself to be satisfied. However, Mr J Faddy of No 2/18 and Mr K and Mrs L Thomson of No 1/18 remain objectors.

3 None of the objectors was present at the on-site hearing. I am satisfied that the 1.7m-high screen will shield the rear yards of Nos 1/18 and 2/18. For that reason, I agree to the granting of consent orders.

      Orders

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Application to modify Development Consent 04/0417, granted on 13 January 2005 in respect of 18 Alkaringa Road, Miranda, is determined by the granting of consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

3. No order on costs.

4. Exhibit A is retained on the court’s files.

      ______________________
      Dr John Roseth
      Senior Commissioner
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0