Madgwick v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2011] NSWLEC 1388

Madgwick v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2011] NSWLEC 1388

The development achieves the planning objectives notwithstanding non-compliance with the landscape area standard; removal of the tree is acceptable subject to a replacement planting condition, and strict compliance with cl 19(3) of the LEP would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Ms L Madgwick; Respondent: Leichhardt Municipal Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted
Legal Topics
Development Application, Tree Removal, Landscape Controls, SEPP 1 Objections
Planning and Environment Development Application Tree Removal Landscape Controls 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms L Madgwick

Applicant

Leichhardt Municipal Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether development consent should be granted for proposed demolitions and new structures, including tree removal, at 25 Young Street Annandale
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with clause 19(3) of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 regarding landscaped area justifies refusal of consent
  3. 3 Whether loss of tree conflicts with planning controls and desired neighbourhood character

Ratio Decidendi

The development achieves the planning objectives notwithstanding non-compliance with the landscape area standard; removal of the tree is acceptable subject to a replacement planting condition, and strict compliance with cl 19(3) of the LEP would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The SEPP 1 objection to compliance with clause 19(3) of the LEP is upheld.