Zdrilic v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1604

Zdrilic v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1604

The existing building was not a contributory property because its original Federation form was not recognisable, it could not reasonably be reinstated without effectively rebuilding, and the Inter War frontage additions were not a notable example of that period or sensitive additions to the original building. On balance, demolition met the threshold requirements of Part 19B.1 Control 2, and neither demolition nor the amended replacement dwelling would adversely affect the heritage significance of the Springdale Heritage Conservation Area. The cl 4.6 written request adequately justified the floor space ratio exceedance because strict compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary, sufficient...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No. 0590/17 / Hearing Following Termination of Mandatory Conciliation Conference Under S 34(4) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'contributory Property' 'demolition Within Heritage Conservation Area' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Request']

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 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No. 0590/17 / Hearing Following Termination of Mandatory Conciliation Conference Under S 34(4) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

  1. 1 ['Whether the existing dwelling at 38 Springdale Street, Killara was a contributory property within the Springdale Heritage Conservation Area.' 'Whether demolition of the existing structures and construction of a replacement dwelling would adversely affect the heritage significance, streetscape or character of the Springdale Heritage Conservation Area.' 'Whether the Applicant satisfactorily demonstrated the matters in Part 19B.1 Control 2 of the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan concerning demolition within heritage conservation areas.' 'Whether the written request under cl 4.6 of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 adequately justified contravention of the floor space ratio development standard.']

Ratio Decidendi

The existing building was not a contributory property because its original Federation form was not recognisable, it could not reasonably be reinstated without effectively rebuilding, and the Inter War frontage additions were not a notable example of that period or sensitive additions to the original building. On balance, demolition met the threshold requirements of Part 19B.1 Control 2, and neither demolition nor the amended replacement dwelling would adversely affect the heritage significance of the Springdale Heritage Conservation Area. The cl 4.6 written request adequately justified the floor space ratio exceedance because strict compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary, sufficient...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans marked Exhibit A, and as further amended in Exhibit L.' 'The appeal is upheld.' "Development consent for Development Application No. 0590/17 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new dwelling at 38 Springdale Street, Killara is...