Hosey v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 374

Hosey v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 374

Development consent for the proposed boatshed was refused because its location would require massive excavation at the foreshore, destruction of significant natural landform and part of an Aboriginal midden, and the applicants had not yet obtained necessary permits relating to Aboriginal heritage. The proposal was inconsistent with LEP 2000 and DCP controls regarding minimising excavation and retaining natural features.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'waterfront Development' 'heritage/aboriginal Cultural Heritage' 'environmental Impact' 'local Environmental Plans']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['development Applications' 'waterfront Development' 'heritage/aboriginal Cultural Heritage' 'environmental Impact' 'local Environmental Plans']

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

Development Application Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development consent should be granted for the construction of a boatshed at 25 Flat Rock Road, Gymea Bay' 'Whether the proposal complies with LEP 2000 and applicable DCP provisions' 'The impact on aboriginal archaeological deposits' "Requirements for landowner's consent and procedural requirements for slip rails"]

Ratio Decidendi

Development consent for the proposed boatshed was refused because its location would require massive excavation at the foreshore, destruction of significant natural landform and part of an Aboriginal midden, and the applicants had not yet obtained necessary permits relating to Aboriginal heritage. The proposal was inconsistent with LEP 2000 and DCP controls regarding minimising excavation and retaining natural features.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application no. 02/1390 for a boatshed in the south-eastern corner of 25 Flat Rock Road, Gymea Bay, is refused.' 'The exhibits, other than exhibits A, C, 8 and 9, may be returned.']