Gungor v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1500

Gungor v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1500

The proposed development would be antipathetic to the objective of conserving the heritage significance of the Ashbury Heritage Conservation Area. Although the immediate environs included some erosion of heritage values and the existing dwelling made only a modest neutral contribution, the proposal was much less modest in built form and scale, failed to maintain the traditional single storey, single detached dwelling character with front garden setting, presented as two front porches, two front doors, two garage doors and two driveways on narrow allotments, provided inadequate opportunity for front gardens, and did not offer reasonable alternative solutions satisfying the DCP heritage...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Hearing Following Termination of Mandatory Conciliation Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Development Application No. DA 148/2017 refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal' 'ashbury Heritage Conservation Area' 'dual Occupancy Development' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance' 'development Control Plan Compliance']
['planning and Environment' 'heritage Conservation' 'development Control'] ['development Application Refusal' 'ashbury Heritage Conservation Area' 'dual Occupancy Development' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance' 'development Control Plan Compliance']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Development Application Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Hearing Following Termination of Mandatory Conciliation Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed dual occupancy development and Torrens Title subdivision would have an unreasonable adverse impact on the heritage significance and character of the Ashbury Heritage Conservation Area.' 'Whether erosion of heritage character in the immediate locality and the non-contributory or neutral nature of the existing building reduced the heritage impact of the proposed development.' 'Whether permissibility of dual occupancy development in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and housing objectives outweighed the heritage conservation controls.' 'Whether the proposed built form, including two storey appearance, presentation as two dwellings, frontage treatment, fenestration, driveways and garages, was compatible with the applicable heritage controls.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development would be antipathetic to the objective of conserving the heritage significance of the Ashbury Heritage Conservation Area. Although the immediate environs included some erosion of heritage values and the existing dwelling made only a modest neutral contribution, the proposal was much less modest in built form and scale, failed to maintain the traditional single storey, single detached dwelling character with front garden setting, presented as two front porches, two front doors, two garage doors and two driveways on narrow allotments, provided inadequate opportunity for front gardens, and did not offer reasonable alternative solutions satisfying the DCP heritage...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Development Application No. DA 148/2017 refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application No. DA 148/2017 for a dual occupancy development and Torrens Title subdivision at 115 Hay Street, Ashbury is refused.']