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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment