Hales v Parramatta City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1210

Hales v Parramatta City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1210

The proposal did not warrant approval because the second driveway, driveway extension and potential parking in the front garden space would be visually intrusive, inconsistent with the established garden setting and character of the area, and contrary to the objectives of the relevant DCP controls and Aim 2(h) of the LEP. The Court found that the safety and convenience benefits were limited because the existing driveway, porte-cochere and turning bay already allowed forward exit in many circumstances, and the site had ample parking on site and along the street frontage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Principal Judgment After Conciliation Conference Under S34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Was Terminated and the Hearing Held Forthwith
Outcome
The appeal was dismissed and the development application was refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'driveway Extension' 'second Vehicle Crossing' 'streetscape Character' 'garden Space' 'heritage Conservation Area']
['planning and Environment' 'development Control'] ['development Application' 'driveway Extension' 'second Vehicle Crossing' 'streetscape Character' 'garden Space' 'heritage Conservation Area']

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 Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Principal Judgment After Conciliation Conference Under S34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Was Terminated and the Hearing Held Forthwith

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposal was inconsistent with the character of the area.' 'Whether the proposal complied with or met the objectives of controls C17, C21 and C37 of cl 4.4.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011.' 'Whether the driveway entry, extension and parked cars would be a visual intrusion affecting streetscape and the relationship of the house to its landscape and front open space.' 'Whether the proposed second driveway provided sufficient safety or convenience benefits to warrant approval.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal did not warrant approval because the second driveway, driveway extension and potential parking in the front garden space would be visually intrusive, inconsistent with the established garden setting and character of the area, and contrary to the objectives of the relevant DCP controls and Aim 2(h) of the LEP. The Court found that the safety and convenience benefits were limited because the existing driveway, porte-cochere and turning bay already allowed forward exit in many circumstances, and the site had ample parking on site and along the street frontage.

Court Disposition

The appeal was dismissed and the development application was refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The development application (505/2014) to construct an extension of a driveway within the front setback area and a second vehicle crossing with a gate at 84 Eastwood Avenue, Epping, is refused.' 'The exhibits, except Exhibits 1 and A, are returned.']