Lannan v Inner West Council [2020] NSWLEC 1536

Lannan v Inner West Council [2020] NSWLEC 1536

Although the applicant's cl 4.6 written request adequately addressed cl 4.6(3) because the proposal did not change the existing footprint or landscaped area, the Court was not satisfied that the proposal was in the public interest. The proposed first-floor addition was inconsistent with the R1 zone objective requiring housing compatible with the character, style, orientation and pattern of surrounding buildings, was incompatible with the established built form and site layout of neighbouring cottages, and did not maintain the visual unity of the group of cottages as required by the relevant Development Control Plan objectives. Development consent was therefore refused and the appeal...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No. D/2019/271 / Principal Judgment After Hearing; S 34 Conciliation Conference Terminated Without Agreement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Development Application No. D/2019/271 refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal' 'partial First Floor Addition' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'residential Amenity' 'landscaped Area Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'solar Access and Overshadowing']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent' 'heritage Conservation'] ['development Application Refusal' 'partial First Floor Addition' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'residential Amenity' 'landscaped Area Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'solar Access and Overshadowing']

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 Pursuant to S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No. D/2019/271 / Principal Judgment After Hearing; S 34 Conciliation Conference Terminated Without Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed partial first-floor addition was compatible with the character, style, orientation and pattern of surrounding buildings and landscaped areas in the R1 General Residential zone.' 'Whether the proposal would make a positive contribution to, or adversely affect, the heritage significance of the Birchgrove and Ballast Point Road Heritage Conservation Area and the group of weatherboard cottages at 1-11 Sardinia Place.' 'Whether the proposal would have unreasonable amenity impacts on 3 Sardinia Place, including solar access, overshadowing and privacy impacts.' "Whether the applicant's cl 4.6 written request adequately justified contravention of the landscaped area development standard in cl 4.3A of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013." 'Whether the proposed development was in the public interest because it was consistent with the objectives of the contravened development standard and the R1 zone objectives.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant's cl 4.6 written request adequately addressed cl 4.6(3) because the proposal did not change the existing footprint or landscaped area, the Court was not satisfied that the proposal was in the public interest. The proposed first-floor addition was inconsistent with the R1 zone objective requiring housing compatible with the character, style, orientation and pattern of surrounding buildings, was incompatible with the established built form and site layout of neighbouring cottages, and did not maintain the visual unity of the group of cottages as required by the relevant Development Control Plan objectives. Development consent was therefore refused and the appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Development Application No. D/2019/271 refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application No. D/2019/271 for a partial first-floor addition to the existing cottage at 5 Sardinia Place, Birchgrove, is refused.' 'The exhibits, other than 1, 6, 7 and A, are returned.']