Carl Small v City of Canada Bay Council [2022] NSWLEC 1697

Carl Small v City of Canada Bay Council [2022] NSWLEC 1697

The amended development application was dismissed because, although the landscaped area shortfall was acceptable, the proposal failed to satisfy cl 5.10 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013. The Court preferred the Respondent's heritage evidence that the proposed relationship between old and new work and the resultant extent of demolition to the existing heritage dwelling would adversely affect its heritage significance, and those impacts were not justified by the merits of the proposal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application Da2021/0218 / Final Judgment After Conciliation Conference and Hearing Under S 34 Aa(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Alterations and Additions to a Dwelling House' 'local Heritage Item' 'heritage Impacts' 'landscaped Area Controls' 'class 1 Appeal']
['planning and Environment' 'heritage Conservation' 'development Consent'] ['development Application for Alterations and Additions to a Dwelling House' 'local Heritage Item' 'heritage Impacts' 'landscaped Area Controls' 'class 1 Appeal']

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 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application Da2021/0218 / Final Judgment After Conciliation Conference and Hearing Under S 34 Aa(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed extent of landscaped area was adequate despite a minor shortfall under Part E3.8 of the City of Canada Bay Development Control Plan 2017.' 'Whether the amended development application satisfied cl 5.10 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 by conserving the heritage significance of the local heritage item.' 'Whether the relationship between old and new work and the extent of demolition to the existing dwelling were acceptable heritage impacts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended development application was dismissed because, although the landscaped area shortfall was acceptable, the proposal failed to satisfy cl 5.10 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013. The Court preferred the Respondent's heritage evidence that the proposed relationship between old and new work and the resultant extent of demolition to the existing heritage dwelling would adversely affect its heritage significance, and those impacts were not justified by the merits of the proposal.

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The exhibits, other than 1, 3, 4, A and H, are returned.']