Basemount v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 13

Basemount v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 13

The No 9 application was approved because, on balance, it is compatible with the existing and future character of the area, satisfies most SEPP 65 design principles acceptably, causes less tree loss, and its heritage impact is not determinative; whereas the Nos 11-13 application was refused due to unacceptable bulk...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Basemount Pty Ltd and Gaofind Pty Ltd; Respondent: Baulkham Hills Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Rehearing on Merits
Outcome
Appeal No 11017 of 2000 dismissed, Appeal No 11317 of 2000 upheld
Legal Topics
Development Application, Rezoning, Heritage Impact, Streetscape, SEPP 65, Tree Removal, Roads and Traffic, Consistency of Decisions
Planning Law Environmental Law Local Government Law Development Application Rezoning Heritage Impact Streetscape SEPP 65 +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basemount Pty Ltd and Gaofind Pty Ltd

Applicant

Baulkham Hills Shire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Rehearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the proposals be approved given the zoning change now prohibiting residential flat buildings?
  2. 2 Are the proposals compatible with the existing and likely future character of the area?
  3. 3 Are the proposals of good design with regard to SEPP 65 principles?

Ratio Decidendi

The No 9 application was approved because, on balance, it is compatible with the existing and future character of the area, satisfies most SEPP 65 design principles acceptably, causes less tree loss, and its heritage impact is not determinative; whereas the Nos 11-13 application was refused due to unacceptable bulk and streetscape fit, poor internal amenity, problematic vehicular egress, and more substantial tree loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal No 11017 of 2000 dismissed, Appeal No 11317 of 2000 upheld

Orders

  • Appeal No 11017 of 2000 is dismissed.
  • Development application to erect two residential flat buildings containing 42 dwellings on Nos 11 and 13 Garthowen Crescent, and Nos 292, 294 and 296 Old Northern Road, Castle Hill, is refused.