Appwam Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2011] NSWLEC 1001

Appwam Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2011] NSWLEC 1001

The construction of a high acoustic wall on public land to ameliorate impacts of private development is not appropriate; all mitigating works should be wholly contained within the applicant's site to protect amenity and comply with the purpose of relevant legislation. Proposed development, apart from the acoustic wall, is considered acceptable, but amendments are required to relocate the wall and associated elements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Post Conciliation Conference Determination
Outcome
Directions given for applicant to consider amendments; appeal to be upheld or dismissed in Chambers pending response and submission of amended plans and conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Standards' 'bulk, Height and Scale' 'impact on Adjacent Residential Area' 'use of Road for Private Purpose']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Standards' 'bulk, Height and Scale' 'impact on Adjacent Residential Area' 'use of Road for Private Purpose']

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 Against Refusal of Development Application / Post Conciliation Conference Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether consent should be granted for construction of an acoustic wall within a public road (Kensington Lane) and whether such construction is in the public interest' 'Whether approval under the Roads Act 1993 should be granted for construction of the wall and if such approval aligns with the objectives of the Act' 'Impact of the acoustic wall on the amenity of adjacent residents']

Ratio Decidendi

The construction of a high acoustic wall on public land to ameliorate impacts of private development is not appropriate; all mitigating works should be wholly contained within the applicant's site to protect amenity and comply with the purpose of relevant legislation. Proposed development, apart from the acoustic wall, is considered acceptable, but amendments are required to relocate the wall and associated elements.

Court Disposition

Directions given for applicant to consider amendments; appeal to be upheld or dismissed in Chambers pending response and submission of amended plans and conditions.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is to advise the Court by ecourt by 21 January 2011 whether it intends to amend the application to reflect the decision.' 'If so, the applicant is to file and serve sketch plans which incorporate the changes by 28 January 2011.' 'Agreed conditions, in RTF format, reflecting the amendments are to be...