Johnston v Wollongong City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1331

Johnston v Wollongong City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1331

The development is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 71, particularly as concerns the protection of the visual amenity and natural scenic quality of the coast; its bulk, scale, and prominence on a uniquely placed headland site will have an adverse impact on the special aesthetic values that the E4 zoning seeks to protect. Approval would not result in low-impact development but rather cause harm to the coastal visual landscape and set a precedent for further intrusive developments. Statutory planning controls and the expert evidence indicate that refusal of the application is warranted.

Parties
Applicant: Julie Ann Johnston; Applicant: Joan Mary Johnston; Respondent: Wollongong City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (class 1) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Application, Coastal Processes, Visual Impact, Precedent, Zoning Objectives, Statutory Interpretation
Planning and Environment Development Application Coastal Processes Visual Impact Precedent Zoning Objectives Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Ann Johnston

Applicant

Joan Mary Johnston

Applicant

Wollongong City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (class 1) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed development is consistent with the statutory and planning controls applicable to the site, including SEPP 71 and WLEP 2009
  2. 2 Whether the visual impact and bulk, scale, and siting of the development are appropriate for the coastal location and comply with the objectives of the E4 Environmental Living Zone
  3. 3 Whether geotechnical and coastal hazard risks have been adequately addressed in the design and whether a seawall is required

Ratio Decidendi

The development is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 71, particularly as concerns the protection of the visual amenity and natural scenic quality of the coast; its bulk, scale, and prominence on a uniquely placed headland site will have an adverse impact on the special aesthetic values that the E4 zoning seeks to protect. Approval would not result in low-impact development but rather cause harm to the coastal visual landscape and set a precedent for further intrusive developments. Statutory planning controls and the expert evidence indicate that refusal of the application is warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits A, B, N and 1.