Young v Parramatta City Council [No. 3] [2003] NSWLEC 73

Young v Parramatta City Council [No. 3] [2003] NSWLEC 73

Issue 5 was valid and should remain because a heritage impact statement was necessary before the development application could be determined, but cl 11 did not require the respondent council to provide it; if the council chose not to provide it, the applicant could do so. The respondent had not failed to do anything required for determination of the development application, so the amended notice of motion was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Question of Law Concerning a Development Application / Preliminary Determination on Applicant's Amended Notice of Motion Dated 2 December 2002
Outcome
Applicant's amended notice of motion dated 2 December 2002 dismissed.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'heritage Impact Statement' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'preliminary Question of Law']
['planning and Environment Law' 'heritage Conservation'] ['development Application' 'heritage Impact Statement' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'preliminary Question of Law']

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

Question of Law Concerning a Development Application / Preliminary Determination on Applicant's Amended Notice of Motion Dated 2 December 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether approval can be granted where a statement detailing the impact of the proposed development on the Wyralla Avenue Conservation Area had not been provided.' 'Whether the respondent council was required to provide a statement of heritage significance or heritage impact statement so that the applicant could comply with cl 11(6)(a) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).']

Ratio Decidendi

Issue 5 was valid and should remain because a heritage impact statement was necessary before the development application could be determined, but cl 11 did not require the respondent council to provide it; if the council chose not to provide it, the applicant could do so. The respondent had not failed to do anything required for determination of the development application, so the amended notice of motion was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's amended notice of motion dated 2 December 2002 dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's amended notice of motion dated 2 December 2002 is dismissed."]