Canyork Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council and Anor [2003] NSWLEC 125

Canyork Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council and Anor [2003] NSWLEC 125

The proposed development, despite numerical compliance, would have an adverse visual impact on the coastal headland due to its height, bulk, scale and footprint, and would diminish the aesthetic significance of the Norfolk Island pines, a heritage item. This fails relevant planning principles and the statutory objectives for the site, warranting refusal of consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; consent for proposed development refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'coastal Planning' 'visual Impact Assessment' 'heritage Significance' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'tourism Zoning' 'site Specific Controls']
['planning Law' 'environmental Law' 'heritage Law'] ['development Application' 'coastal Planning' 'visual Impact Assessment' 'heritage Significance' 'environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'tourism Zoning' 'site Specific Controls']

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 Deemed Refusal of Development Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposal will have adverse impact on the character and scenic quality of the headland due to height, bulk, scale and footprint' 'Whether the proposal will have adverse impact on the heritage significance of the Norfolk Island pines' 'Whether the proposal has acceptable standard of internal amenity' 'Whether the proposal adversely impacts the open space reserve']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development, despite numerical compliance, would have an adverse visual impact on the coastal headland due to its height, bulk, scale and footprint, and would diminish the aesthetic significance of the Norfolk Island pines, a heritage item. This fails relevant planning principles and the statutory objectives for the site, warranting refusal of consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; consent for proposed development refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application D195/02 for construction of a serviced apartment tourism development at lots 87 – 95 DP 9233 Headland Avenue, Austinmer, is determined by the refusal of consent.' 'The exhibits may be returned.' 'No order as to costs.']