Harper v City of Sydney Council [2013] NSWLEC 1091
Modification is approved as proposed locations and bulk satisfy planning controls and heritage requirements; privacy is adequately provided; heritage interpretation strategy for stairs is unnecessary given loss of traditional interior layout; deck extension poses no unacceptable heritage impact.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 May 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Appeal Under S 96(2) Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Judgment After Conciliation and Hearing
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; modification of consent approved
- Legal Topics
- ['modification of Development Consent' 'heritage Impact' 'visual Privacy' 'bulk and Scale' 'interpretation Strategy']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 96(2) Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Judgment After Conciliation and Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether spiral staircase should be relocated to protect privacy' 'Whether height of garage should be reduced by 250 mm' 'Whether heritage interpretation strategy for internal stairs should be required' 'Whether extension of first floor deck has unacceptable heritage impact']
Ratio Decidendi
Modification is approved as proposed locations and bulk satisfy planning controls and heritage requirements; privacy is adequately provided; heritage interpretation strategy for stairs is unnecessary given loss of traditional interior layout; deck extension poses no unacceptable heritage impact.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; modification of consent approved
Orders
- ['Appeal upheld' 'Application to modify conditions of consent to approval D/2010/2111/A approved subject to conditions in Annexure A' 'Exhibits are returned with exception of exhibits 5 and W']
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