Aitchison v Marrickville Council [2004] NSWLEC 63
The proposed subdivision and development is not similar to the prevailing character in lot size and width, is not consistent with the streetscape, and the design of carports does not comply with DCP objectives or controls; therefore, consent to the development should not be granted.
- Parties
- Applicant: Andrew Aitchison; Respondent: Marrickville Council
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 January 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Development Application Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Development Application, Subdivision, Demolition, Streetscape, Development Control Plan Compliance
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Andrew Aitchison
Applicant
Marrickville Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed subdivision and development is consistent with the prevailing subdivision pattern and streetscape as required by the Development Control Plan No. 35
- 2 Whether the design and siting of carports and double-storey dwellings is consistent with control objectives in the DCP
- 3 Whether acid sulphate soils and related environmental concerns preclude development
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed subdivision and development is not similar to the prevailing character in lot size and width, is not consistent with the streetscape, and the design of carports does not comply with DCP objectives or controls; therefore, consent to the development should not be granted.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The exhibits other than exhibits A, B and 2, may be returned.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment