Kiprovski v Leichhardt Council [2014] NSWLEC 1086

Kiprovski v Leichhardt Council [2014] NSWLEC 1086

The proposal to demolish the majority of the internal fabric and manipulate levels to create three floors behind the modest Victorian terrace facade fails to achieve a cohesive relationship with retained original fabric, does not respect the constraints and character of the Balmain Conservation Area, and would diminish its historic and aesthetic values. Despite accepting the SEPP 1 objection to FSR, the adverse heritage impact alone warrants refusal of the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'alterations and Additions' 'heritage Conservation' 'floor Space Ratio' 'urban Design' 'amenity Impacts']
['planning and Environment' 'heritage'] ['development Application' 'alterations and Additions' 'heritage Conservation' 'floor Space Ratio' 'urban Design' 'amenity Impacts']

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

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed alterations and additions to a Victorian terrace house are acceptable in the Balmain Conservation Area' 'Whether the proposal achieves the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard' 'Impact of the proposal on heritage significance and neighbourhood character' 'Acceptability of amenity impacts on neighbouring properties']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal to demolish the majority of the internal fabric and manipulate levels to create three floors behind the modest Victorian terrace facade fails to achieve a cohesive relationship with retained original fabric, does not respect the constraints and character of the Balmain Conservation Area, and would diminish its historic and aesthetic values. Despite accepting the SEPP 1 objection to FSR, the adverse heritage impact alone warrants refusal of the application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application No. D/2013/534 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling is refused.' 'The exhibits, other than exhibits 1 and A, are returned.']