Nanlejo Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1141

Nanlejo Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1141

The proposed berthing facility does not meet statutory definitions for either a 'watercraft facility' (which requires a single pontoon and temporary use) or a 'berthing area' (which is defined for one vessel and requires a configuration of piles separate from the main structure). Permanent mooring of multiple vessels is not permissible under the SSLEP 2006 in this zone, and the excessive scale and visual impact of the facility are inconsistent with environmental protection and scenic value objectives, warranting refusal of development consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Final Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development consent refused
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'permissibility of Waterway Structures' 'scenic Impact Assessment' 'precedent in Planning' 'design Standards']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Applications' 'permissibility of Waterway Structures' 'scenic Impact Assessment' 'precedent in Planning' 'design Standards']

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 / Final Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Permissibility of proposed berthing facility under SSLEP 2006 definitions' 'Impact on the scenic value of the waterway' 'Alienation of public land' 'Setting precedent for similar developments' 'Suitability of design under DCP and relevant standards']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed berthing facility does not meet statutory definitions for either a 'watercraft facility' (which requires a single pontoon and temporary use) or a 'berthing area' (which is defined for one vessel and requires a configuration of piles separate from the main structure). Permanent mooring of multiple vessels is not permissible under the SSLEP 2006 in this zone, and the excessive scale and visual impact of the facility are inconsistent with environmental protection and scenic value objectives, warranting refusal of development consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development consent refused

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development consent for the removal of the existing stub wharf and construction of a 5–vessel berthing facility and associated works at 24–26 St George Crescent, Sandy Point is refused.' 'Exhibits may be returned except for 8, 11, B, and L.']