Freer v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1084

Freer v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1084

The control requiring parking to be located behind the front building line is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case; the proposal for permeable wheel strips with a sliding gate will not unreasonably detract from the appearance of the dwelling or streetscape, does not significantly reduce on-street parking accommodation, and satisfies relevant objectives for parking and safety. The appeal is allowed.

Parties
Applicant: Geoff Freer; Respondent: Waverley Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Development Application, Front Building Line, On Site Parking, Development Control Plan, Discretion to Relax Controls
Planning and Environment Development Application Front Building Line On Site Parking Development Control Plan Discretion to Relax Controls

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoff Freer

Applicant

Waverley Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposal for off-street parking forward of the building line ought to be approved, given non-compliance with applicable development control plans
  2. 2 Whether Council should have relaxed the building line control as unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The control requiring parking to be located behind the front building line is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case; the proposal for permeable wheel strips with a sliding gate will not unreasonably detract from the appearance of the dwelling or streetscape, does not significantly reduce on-street parking accommodation, and satisfies relevant objectives for parking and safety. The appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

appeal upheld

Orders

  • The appeal No. 10059 of 2010 is upheld.
  • The attached approved development conditions, including the 'Hardstand Parking Plan', apply.