Wills v North Sydney Council [2020] NSWLEC 1119

Wills v North Sydney Council [2020] NSWLEC 1119

Development consent should be granted because the application material was sufficient to assess the heritage impact, nothing would be affixed to the heritage fabric, obstruction of views would be limited to defined temporary areas and to 20 occasions each year, and the cumulative impact of the temporary structures was acceptable. A condition preventing storage around the curtilage was warranted because ongoing storage would create clutter disrespectful to the heritage significance of the item. The LA10 acoustic criteria were not extended to serviced apartments because the NSDCP applied the relevant criteria to residential receivers, s 4.15(3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'class 1 Appeal' 'heritage Item on State Heritage Register' 'temporary Structures and Trade Out Areas' 'acoustic Conditions' 'public Safety and Anti Social Behaviour' 'conditions of Consent']
['planning and Environment Law' 'heritage Conservation' 'licensed Premises'] ['development Consent' 'class 1 Appeal' 'heritage Item on State Heritage Register' 'temporary Structures and Trade Out Areas' 'acoustic Conditions' 'public Safety and Anti Social Behaviour' 'conditions of Consent']

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

Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sufficient information had been provided to assess the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the Greenwood Hotel.' 'Whether the proposed extension of the hotel operation area and temporary structures would have an acceptable impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item.' 'Whether a condition should prevent storage around the curtilage of the heritage building outside approved occasions.' 'Whether acoustic criteria should apply to serviced apartments or other short stay accommodation as well as affected residences.' 'Whether the proposal would cause unacceptable public safety, alcohol-related crime or anti-social behaviour impacts.']

Ratio Decidendi

Development consent should be granted because the application material was sufficient to assess the heritage impact, nothing would be affixed to the heritage fabric, obstruction of views would be limited to defined temporary areas and to 20 occasions each year, and the cumulative impact of the temporary structures was acceptable. A condition preventing storage around the curtilage was warranted because ongoing storage would create clutter disrespectful to the heritage significance of the item. The LA10 acoustic criteria were not extended to serviced apartments because the NSDCP applied the relevant criteria to residential receivers, s 4.15(3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the development application to the Trade Out Areas in Plan No ID-210 Revision 5, and the set up areas in Plan No ID-0211 Revision 4.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted for the extension of the area of operation of the Greenwood Hotel at 101-103...