Nonlow Pty Limited v Hunters Hill Council [2019] NSWLEC 1631

Nonlow Pty Limited v Hunters Hill Council [2019] NSWLEC 1631

The Court was satisfied that the applicant’s written request adequately addressed the requirements of cl 4.6(3). The contravention was justified due to heritage retention constraints and resulted in no relevant planning or amenity impacts. The proposal satisfied both development standard and zone objectives and had an acceptable effect on heritage significance. Orders were therefore made to uphold the appeal and grant consent.

Parties
Applicant: Nonlow Pty Limited; Respondent: Hunters Hill Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal (class 1) / Judgment After Conciliation Conference
Outcome
Appeal upheld and development application approved subject to conditions. Leave granted to amend application. Applicant to pay respondent's costs of $7,500 within 28 days.
Legal Topics
Development Applications, Heritage Conservation, Development Standard Variations, Public Interest, Jurisdictional Preconditions
Planning and Environment Law Development Applications Heritage Conservation Development Standard Variations Public Interest Jurisdictional Preconditions

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nonlow Pty Limited

Applicant

Hunters Hill Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (class 1) / Judgment After Conciliation Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to rely on amended plans and documents
  2. 2 Whether the contravention of the height of buildings development standard is justified under cl 4.6 of LEP 2012
  3. 3 Whether the proposal is in the public interest and consistent with objectives of the contravened development standard and the zone

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the applicant’s written request adequately addressed the requirements of cl 4.6(3). The contravention was justified due to heritage retention constraints and resulted in no relevant planning or amenity impacts. The proposal satisfied both development standard and zone objectives and had an acceptable effect on heritage significance. Orders were therefore made to uphold the appeal and grant consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and development application approved subject to conditions. Leave granted to amend application. Applicant to pay respondent's costs of $7,500 within 28 days.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend the application to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
  • The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $7,500.00 within 28 days of these orders.