Tierney v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 1361

Tierney v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 1361

The Court upheld the SEPP 1 objection because the floor space ratio exceedence was in an unobtrusive basement and did not produce adverse consequences for bulk, scale or density. Applying an averaging approach to the Building Location Zone controls produced a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring buildings and no unreasonable amenity impacts were established. Although the garage door was not entirely subordinate, it was less than half the building width, traffic evidence showed no adverse parking or traffic-flow impacts, and the contemporary building was appropriately responsive to nearby built form and the streetscape. The impacts were relatively minor and did not render the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment After on Site Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld and conditional development consent granted.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'floor Space Ratio' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'building Location Zone' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'streetscape and Character' 'neighbour Amenity' 'off Street Parking']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'floor Space Ratio' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'building Location Zone' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'streetscape and Character' 'neighbour Amenity' 'off Street Parking']

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

Development Application Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment After on Site Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the SEPP 1 objection to the floor space ratio development standard should be upheld.' 'Whether the proposed development complied with or was acceptable having regard to the Building Location Zone controls in Part B1.2 of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2000.' 'Whether the proposed replacement dwelling was suitable having regard to streetscape and heritage conservation considerations.' 'Whether the proposed development would cause unacceptable amenity impacts including privacy, overshadowing and view loss.' 'Whether the proposed garage access and driveway were acceptable having regard to streetscape and parking controls.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the SEPP 1 objection because the floor space ratio exceedence was in an unobtrusive basement and did not produce adverse consequences for bulk, scale or density. Applying an averaging approach to the Building Location Zone controls produced a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring buildings and no unreasonable amenity impacts were established. Although the garage door was not entirely subordinate, it was less than half the building width, traffic evidence showed no adverse parking or traffic-flow impacts, and the contemporary building was appropriately responsive to nearby built form and the streetscape. The impacts were relatively minor and did not render the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and conditional development consent granted.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'Conditional development consent granted on the agreed conditions contained in Exhibit 3.' 'The plans will be retained.']