Coorey v Municipality of Hunters Hill [2013] NSWLEC 1187

Coorey v Municipality of Hunters Hill [2013] NSWLEC 1187

The revised proposal was worthy of development consent because, when assessed by a qualitative and quantitative process rather than the prescriptive Edgar Allan Planning formula, it was properly characterised as additions and alterations to the original heritage cottage. The heritage benefits of preserving and enhancing the presentation of Waterside, including reinstating the southern roof plane by removing the dormer, outweighed the limited amenity reduction. Replacement of the Callistemons with appropriately specified Camellias would provide screening and improve view lines. Development consent required revised plans, settled conditions, any necessary SEPP No 1 objection, and an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Development Application for Additions and Alterations to 7 De Milhau Road, Hunters Hill / Principal Judgment Giving Directions Before Final Orders and Development Consent
Outcome
Directions made that will lead to the appeal being upheld and development consent being granted for additions and alterations to 7 De Milhau Road, Hunters Hill, subject to further steps including revised plans, any required SEPP No 1 objection, conditions and an acceptable conservation management plan.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'heritage Impact' 'planning Principles' 'characterisation of Development as Additions and Alterations or New Development' 'landscaped Area Development Standard' 'state Environment Planning Policy No 1 Objection']
['planning and Environment' 'heritage'] ['development Consent' 'heritage Impact' 'planning Principles' 'characterisation of Development as Additions and Alterations or New Development' 'landscaped Area Development Standard' 'state Environment Planning Policy No 1 Objection']

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 Concerning Refusal of a Development Application for Additions and Alterations to 7 De Milhau Road, Hunters Hill / Principal Judgment Giving Directions Before Final Orders and Development Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposal should be characterised as alterations and additions to an existing dwelling or as a new development.' 'Whether the dormer in the southern roof plane of the heritage item should be removed or retained in modified form for amenity reasons.' 'Whether Callistemon trees in the Centenary Avenue nature strip should be retained and pruned or removed and replaced with Camellias.' 'Whether a conservation management plan was required before development consent could be granted.' 'Whether any non-compliance with the soft landscaped area development standard should impede approval.']

Ratio Decidendi

The revised proposal was worthy of development consent because, when assessed by a qualitative and quantitative process rather than the prescriptive Edgar Allan Planning formula, it was properly characterised as additions and alterations to the original heritage cottage. The heritage benefits of preserving and enhancing the presentation of Waterside, including reinstating the southern roof plane by removing the dormer, outweighed the limited amenity reduction. Replacement of the Callistemons with appropriately specified Camellias would provide screening and improve view lines. Development consent required revised plans, settled conditions, any necessary SEPP No 1 objection, and an...

Court Disposition

Directions made that will lead to the appeal being upheld and development consent being granted for additions and alterations to 7 De Milhau Road, Hunters Hill, subject to further steps including revised plans, any required SEPP No 1 objection, conditions and an acceptable conservation management plan.

Orders

  • ['The matter is set down for mention before Moore SC at 9:15 AM on 25 October.' 'The applicant is to file and serve revised, settled plans that reflect this decision and the matters contained in or arising out of Exhibit 3 by the close of business on 21 October.' 'The applicant is to file and serve, if required, by...