Panoyan v Woollahra Municipal Council [2011] NSWLEC 1081

Panoyan v Woollahra Municipal Council [2011] NSWLEC 1081

The appeal was upheld because the Court was satisfied that the proposed vehicle could be located wholly within 90 Windsor Street, that a minimum 3 m parking width could be maintained notwithstanding the encroachments, and that the parking space could comply with AS/NZS 2890.1.2004. The landscaping within the 3 m width did not interfere with vehicle access, and the southwest landscape strip was retained because it was required for DCP landscaping compliance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeals Against Refusal of Applications Under S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Amend Development Consent DA 638/2008 / Judgment After a S 34 Conciliation Conference Under the Land and Environment Court Act Where No Agreement Was Reached and the Parties Agreed to Disposal Under S 34(4)(b)(i)
Outcome
The appeals were upheld and the s 96 applications to modify development consent 638/2008 for 90 Windsor Street, Paddington, were approved, with the consent modified as set out in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['s 96 Modification Application' 'development Consent' 'on Site Parking' 'vehicle Access' 'landscaping Conditions' 'australian Standard As/nzs 2890.1.2004']
['environmental Planning and Development Law' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['s 96 Modification Application' 'development Consent' 'on Site Parking' 'vehicle Access' 'landscaping Conditions' 'australian Standard As/nzs 2890.1.2004']

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 Appeals Against Refusal of Applications Under S 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Amend Development Consent DA 638/2008 / Judgment After a S 34 Conciliation Conference Under the Land and Environment Court Act Where No Agreement Was Reached and the Parties Agreed to Disposal Under S 34(4)(b)(i)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed on-site parking space could comply with the required 3 m width despite encroachments involving adjoining properties' 'Whether landscaping within the 3 m width interfered with vehicle access' 'Whether disputed landscaping conditions should be imposed or retained']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the Court was satisfied that the proposed vehicle could be located wholly within 90 Windsor Street, that a minimum 3 m parking width could be maintained notwithstanding the encroachments, and that the parking space could comply with AS/NZS 2890.1.2004. The landscaping within the 3 m width did not interfere with vehicle access, and the southwest landscape strip was retained because it was required for DCP landscaping compliance.

Court Disposition

The appeals were upheld and the s 96 applications to modify development consent 638/2008 for 90 Windsor Street, Paddington, were approved, with the consent modified as set out in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['In Appeal No. 10844 of 2010, the appeal is upheld.' 'In Appeal No. 10844 of 2010, the application under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify development consent (638/2008) for 90 Windsor Street, Paddington, is approved and the consent is modified as set out in Annexure A.' 'In...