Panagopoulos and Anor v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1122

Panagopoulos and Anor v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1122

The building was not of such heritage significance that it could not be demolished and replaced by the proposed development. The draft heritage listing was not certain or imminent and was not given determinative weight; in the absence of contrary expert evidence, retention was not warranted. The other matters raised did not warrant refusal and the proposal met Objective (b) for the 2(b) residential zone, so the appeal was upheld and the development application approved subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'demolition of Existing Duplex' 'dual Occupancy Development' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'draft Heritage Listing' 'residential Zone Objectives']
['planning and Environment' 'heritage'] ['development Application' 'demolition of Existing Duplex' 'dual Occupancy Development' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'draft Heritage Listing' 'residential Zone Objectives']

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

Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the significance of the existing building warranted its retention rather than demolition and replacement by the proposed development.' 'Whether the proposal was contrary to Objective (b) for the 2(b) Medium Density Residential Zone under clause 10 of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan.' 'What weight should be given to the draft heritage listing in the draft Waverley Local Environmental Plan Amendment No. 33.']

Ratio Decidendi

The building was not of such heritage significance that it could not be demolished and replaced by the proposed development. The draft heritage listing was not certain or imminent and was not given determinative weight; in the absence of contrary expert evidence, retention was not warranted. The other matters raised did not warrant refusal and the proposal met Objective (b) for the 2(b) residential zone, so the appeal was upheld and the development application approved subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld' 'The development application DA16/2009 to demolish an existing duplex and construct a dual occupancy development with Torrens Title subdivision into two lots at No 23 Brown Street, Bronte is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".' 'The exhibits, except for Exhibits A and 2, may...