McKees Legal Solutions v Leichhardt Council [2009] NSWLEC 1346

McKees Legal Solutions v Leichhardt Council [2009] NSWLEC 1346

The proposed subdivision would have an unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of Rothesay and its setting, including the loss of visual connections to the harbour. It is inconsistent with heritage conservation objectives in the LEP 2000 and relevant principles from case law. The impact is of such significance that the development application should be refused and the appeal dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: McKees Legal Solutions; Respondent: Leichhardt Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Development application refused.
Legal Topics
Development Application, Subdivision, Heritage Impact, Building Envelope, Local Planning Controls
Planning and Environment Heritage Conservation Development Application Subdivision Heritage Impact Building Envelope Local Planning Controls

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McKees Legal Solutions

Applicant

Leichhardt Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed subdivision complies with planning controls and heritage objectives
  2. 2 Whether the subdivision and potential dwelling would have unacceptable heritage impacts on Rothesay and surrounding heritage items
  3. 3 Whether the subdivision is consistent with the relevant objectives and controls of LEP 2000 and DCP

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed subdivision would have an unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of Rothesay and its setting, including the loss of visual connections to the harbour. It is inconsistent with heritage conservation objectives in the LEP 2000 and relevant principles from case law. The impact is of such significance that the development application should be refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Development application refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Development Application D/2009/46 for the subdivision of an existing lot into 2 Torrens Title lots at 24 Pearson Street, Balmain East is refused.