Akula v Blacktown City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1022

Akula v Blacktown City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1022

Consent was refused because the applicant did not provide sufficient detail or assessment of the proposed and required external works, including acoustic barriers, security fencing, shade structures, play equipment, landscaping, tree removal and related structures, to enable the Court to consider the effect of the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under Then S 97(1), Now S 8.7(1), of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused; leave granted to rely on amended plans; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Child Care Centre' 'heritage Item Impacts' 'insufficient Information to Assess Heritage Impacts' 'traffic, Parking and Access Impacts' 'acoustic Impacts' 'outdoor Play Areas and Landscaping' 'neighbour Objections']
['planning and Environment Law' 'heritage Conservation' 'development Consent'] ['development Application for Child Care Centre' 'heritage Item Impacts' 'insufficient Information to Assess Heritage Impacts' 'traffic, Parking and Access Impacts' 'acoustic Impacts' 'outdoor Play Areas and Landscaping' 'neighbour Objections']

Source-derived case record

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 Then S 97(1), Now S 8.7(1), of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development consent should be granted for alterations and additions to Glenwood House for use as a child care centre.' 'Whether the Court could consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of Glenwood House as required by cl 5.10 of the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015.' "Whether information about acoustic barriers, security fencing, shade structures, play equipment, landscaping, tree removal, parking and access was sufficient to assess the development's impacts." 'Whether the proposed scale and layout of the child care centre produced acceptable traffic, parking, acoustic, landscaping and visual impacts.']

Ratio Decidendi

Consent was refused because the applicant did not provide sufficient detail or assessment of the proposed and required external works, including acoustic barriers, security fencing, shade structures, play equipment, landscaping, tree removal and related structures, to enable the Court to consider the effect of the development on the heritage significance, setting and views of Glenwood House as required by cl 5.10 of the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015. The Court therefore could not conclude that the development would not adversely impact the heritage significance of the item.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused; leave granted to rely on amended plans; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs thrown away.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs thrown away as agreed or assessed pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979." 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application DA-16-03709 for alterations and...