Morrison v Leichhardt M C and Conventus v Leichhardt M C [2004] NSWLEC 195

Morrison v Leichhardt M C and Conventus v Leichhardt M C [2004] NSWLEC 195

The development applications should not be approved because the SEPP 1 objections to the floor space ratio standard were not well founded: despite satisfactory street presentation, the proposed buildings were too large in the context of the surrounding workers cottages and their importance in the conservation area. For No. 34 Smith Street, the proposed new garage and vehicular crossover would also reduce on-street parking capacity contrary to cl B1.3 of DCP 2000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeals Concerning Dwelling Houses / Judgment After on Site Hearing
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; development consent refused for both applications.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'dwelling Houses' 'streetscape and Conservation Area Impacts' 'bulk and Scale' 'landscaping' 'off Street Car Parking' 'sepp 1 Objections']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'dwelling Houses' 'streetscape and Conservation Area Impacts' 'bulk and Scale' 'landscaping' 'off Street Car Parking' 'sepp 1 Objections']

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 Appeals Concerning Dwelling Houses / Judgment After on Site Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether adjoining properties would suffer amenity impacts in terms of loss of solar access and loss of privacy.' 'Whether the proposals could be satisfactorily landscaped.' 'Whether the proposals would have an adverse impact on the streetscape, the conservation area and neighbouring properties by virtue of design, bulk and scale.' 'Whether the provision of off-street car parking would be appropriate.' 'Whether objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards to floor space ratio and landscaped area standards should be upheld.']

Ratio Decidendi

The development applications should not be approved because the SEPP 1 objections to the floor space ratio standard were not well founded: despite satisfactory street presentation, the proposed buildings were too large in the context of the surrounding workers cottages and their importance in the conservation area. For No. 34 Smith Street, the proposed new garage and vehicular crossover would also reduce on-street parking capacity contrary to cl B1.3 of DCP 2000.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; development consent refused for both applications.

Orders

  • ['The appeals are dismissed.' 'Development Application No. D/2002/905 for alterations and additions to the existing freestanding single storey dwelling at No. 34 Smith Street, Rozelle, is determined by the refusal of development consent.' 'Development Application No. D/2002/692 for the demolition of the existing...