Harbour Port East Coast Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2023] NSWLEC 1683

Harbour Port East Coast Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2023] NSWLEC 1683

The proposed developments do not avoid, or acceptably minimise or mitigate, their impact on existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore and beach, and have unacceptable visual impact in context; approval would set an undesirable precedent. The state of satisfaction required by s 2.10(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 was not reached; the development applications must be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed. Development applications refused.
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'public Access' 'visual Impact' 'precedent' 'environmental Impact' 'interpretation of Statutory Provisions']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Applications' 'public Access' 'visual Impact' 'precedent' 'environmental Impact' 'interpretation of Statutory Provisions']

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

Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed jetties unacceptably impede public access to the beach and foreshore' 'Whether the developments have unacceptable visual impact' 'Whether approval would set an undesirable precedent' 'Whether savings provisions in planning instruments apply']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed developments do not avoid, or acceptably minimise or mitigate, their impact on existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore and beach, and have unacceptable visual impact in context; approval would set an undesirable precedent. The state of satisfaction required by s 2.10(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 was not reached; the development applications must be refused.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed. Development applications refused.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings 2022/353257: Appeal dismissed. DA21/1085 refused.' 'Proceedings 2022/353258: Appeal dismissed. DA21/1062 refused.' 'Proceedings 2022/353256: Appeal dismissed. DA21/1164 refused. Exhibits D, 1, 4 and 7 returned, remaining exhibits retained.']