Cindy & Co Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2011] NSWLEC 1141

Cindy & Co Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2011] NSWLEC 1141

Given the planning controls and the specific context that the subject dwelling is not itself a listed heritage item nor within a conservation area, together with the scope of already approved development and the nature of the changes proposed, some deletions and changes to the conditions are warranted. However, conditions regarding the height reduction (16 i.) and other design measures are appropriately retained to minimise bulk, protect the amenity and streetscape, and preserve the setting of the adjoining heritage item consistent with planning objectives.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal Class 1 (land and Environment Court) / Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of S 96 Modification Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; s 96 application approved; modified conditions attached.
Legal Topics
['development Consent Modification' 'heritage Impacts' 'building Height Control' 'solar Access' 'neighbour Amenity' 'streetscape Impact']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent Modification' 'heritage Impacts' 'building Height Control' 'solar Access' 'neighbour Amenity' 'streetscape Impact']

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 Class 1 (land and Environment Court) / Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of S 96 Modification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development consent should be modified to remove or alter certain conditions relating to height, external finishes and preservation of original features under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'Impact of proposed modifications on adjoining heritage item and streetscape' 'Compliance with height controls and solar access requirements']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the planning controls and the specific context that the subject dwelling is not itself a listed heritage item nor within a conservation area, together with the scope of already approved development and the nature of the changes proposed, some deletions and changes to the conditions are warranted. However, conditions regarding the height reduction (16 i.) and other design measures are appropriately retained to minimise bulk, protect the amenity and streetscape, and preserve the setting of the adjoining heritage item consistent with planning objectives.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; s 96 application approved; modified conditions attached.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld in part.' 'The application under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is approved. The development consent (0660/09) for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house at 29 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield is modified as set out in Annexure A.' 'The exhibits,...