Wisdom v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2005] NSWLEC 656



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
Details
AGLC
Wisdom v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 656
Case
[2005] NSWLEC 656
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clive Wisdom appealed the Sutherland Shire Council's refusal to approve a development application to modify Development Consent 04/0417, which had authorised a first-floor addition to an existing single-storey house. The proposed amendment involved extending the rear balcony to the full width of the first floor. The case reached an agreement between the parties, leading to an application for consent orders. The central legal issue was whether the proposed modifications would infringe the privacy of three nearby properties at 1/18, 2/18, and 20 Alkaringa Road, Miranda.

The applicant had amended the proposal by adding privacy screens reaching a height of 1.7m to prevent any outlook towards No 20 and the rear yards of Nos 1/18 and 2/18. The owner of No 20 expressed satisfaction with the revised plan, but Mr J Faddy of No 2/18 and Mr K and Mrs L Thomson of No 1/18 remained objectors. Notably, none of the objectors attended the on-site hearing. The Senior Commissioner, Dr John Roseth, concluded that the 1.7m-high screens would adequately shield the rear yards of Nos 1/18 and 2/18, thereby upholding the appeal and granting consent orders to modify the development consent.

The court issued several orders to formalise the consent. The appeal was upheld, and the application to modify Development Consent 04/0417, granted on 13 January 2005 for 18 Alkaringa Road, Miranda, was approved subject to specific conditions. Additionally, no order was made regarding costs, and Exhibit A was retained on the court's files. This decision ensured that the modified development would proceed while maintaining the privacy of the neighbouring properties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.