Dillon & Savage Architects v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1478

Dillon & Savage Architects v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1478

The agreed decision was one the Court could make because the proposal was permissible in the B2 zone, the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied, and the amended development would have an acceptable impact on the identified heritage significance of the site and area; accordingly the appeal was upheld and development consent granted subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2019
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/2018/69 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'childcare Centre' 'alterations and Additions' 'partial Demolition' 'tree Removal' 'basement Parking' 'heritage Item' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'conciliation Conference' 'consent Orders']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'childcare Centre' 'alterations and Additions' 'partial Demolition' 'tree Removal' 'basement Parking' 'heritage Item' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'conciliation Conference' 'consent Orders']

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/2018/69 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites to grant development consent under s 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' 'Whether the proposed development had an acceptable impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item and heritage conservation area under cl 5.10(4) of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013.']

Ratio Decidendi

The agreed decision was one the Court could make because the proposal was permissible in the B2 zone, the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied, and the amended development would have an acceptable impact on the identified heritage significance of the site and area; accordingly the appeal was upheld and development consent granted subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend the application to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in Condition 4 of the conditions of consent at Annexure A.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to Development Application No. D/2018/69 for the partial demolition of the existing...