Conventus Pty Ltd v Leichhardt MC [2006] NSWLEC 458

Conventus Pty Ltd v Leichhardt MC [2006] NSWLEC 458

The appeal was upheld because, although the proposal involved some non-compliance with the building location zone, the non-compliance was minor and did not cause unacceptable amenity impacts. The proposal complied with key LEP and DCP controls, provided satisfactory private open space and landscaping, had only very minor overshadowing impacts, was sufficiently modulated to address bulk and scale, and the proposed garage door was acceptable in the conservation streetscape context.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld and conditional development consent granted.
Legal Topics
['alterations and Additions to a Dwelling' 'demolition of Garage and Construction of New Dwelling' 'building Location Zone' 'amenity Impacts' 'overlooking and Privacy' 'overshadowing and Solar Access' 'bulk and Scale' 'conservation Streetscape' 'private Open Space and Landscaping']
['planning and Environment' 'heritage Conservation'] ['alterations and Additions to a Dwelling' 'demolition of Garage and Construction of New Dwelling' 'building Location Zone' 'amenity Impacts' 'overlooking and Privacy' 'overshadowing and Solar Access' 'bulk and Scale' 'conservation Streetscape' 'private Open Space and Landscaping']

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

Development Application Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development should be refused because of non-compliance with the building location zone and resulting impacts on neighbouring properties, especially bulk and scale at second storey level.' 'Whether overshadowing from the proposal would cause unacceptable loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.' 'Whether introducing a garage door into the façade of the new dwelling would adversely affect the conservation streetscape.' 'Whether the amended design adequately addressed the concerns that led to refusal of the previous similar proposal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because, although the proposal involved some non-compliance with the building location zone, the non-compliance was minor and did not cause unacceptable amenity impacts. The proposal complied with key LEP and DCP controls, provided satisfactory private open space and landscaping, had only very minor overshadowing impacts, was sufficiently modulated to address bulk and scale, and the proposed garage door was acceptable in the conservation streetscape context.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and conditional development consent granted.

Orders

  • ['Conditional development consent granted for Development Application No. D2005/398.' 'Condition 2(1), requiring deletion and redesign of the garage, is omitted.' 'The vehicle crossover to No. 36 Smith Street shall be constructed by the provision of a bitumen footpath and a stone kerb to match the existing...