Russo v Northern Beaches Council [2020] NSWLEC 1259
The existing fence was not exempt development, was unauthorised, excessive in height, insufficiently screened, and obstructed wildlife passage, so the development control order was validly issued and should only be modified as to time for compliance. The development application was refused because there was insufficient information to satisfy mandatory preconditions under s 4.14 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and cll 7.6(4) and 7.7(4) of Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014, and because the proposed front fence did not achieve the outcomes and controls in D8.10 of Pittwater 21 Development Control Plan or the established open vegetated character of the locality.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 June 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Appeal Under Ss 8.18 and 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Hearing After Termination of S 34 Conciliation Conference
- Outcome
- The appeal against the development control order was upheld and the order was modified only to extend the compliance period; the appeal against the deemed refusal of the development application was dismissed and the development application was refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['development Control Order to Demolish Front Fence' 'deemed Refusal of Development Application' 'bush Fire Prone Land' 'biodiversity and Geotechnical Hazard Preconditions' 'development Control Plan Controls for Fences' 'streetscape and Locality Character']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under Ss 8.18 and 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Hearing After Termination of S 34 Conciliation Conference
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Development Control Order No. EPA2018/0279 should be endorsed or modified.' 'Whether the Court could be satisfied of the jurisdictional preconditions in s 4.14 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and cll 7.6(4) and 7.7(4) of Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014 before granting development consent.' 'Whether the proposed front fence achieved the outcomes and controls for fences in D8.10 of Pittwater 21 Development Control Plan.' 'Whether the proposed fence was compatible with the character of Scotland Island and Robertson Road.']
Ratio Decidendi
The existing fence was not exempt development, was unauthorised, excessive in height, insufficiently screened, and obstructed wildlife passage, so the development control order was validly issued and should only be modified as to time for compliance. The development application was refused because there was insufficient information to satisfy mandatory preconditions under s 4.14 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and cll 7.6(4) and 7.7(4) of Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014, and because the proposed front fence did not achieve the outcomes and controls in D8.10 of Pittwater 21 Development Control Plan or the established open vegetated character of the locality.
Court Disposition
The appeal against the development control order was upheld and the order was modified only to extend the compliance period; the appeal against the deemed refusal of the development application was dismissed and the development application was refused.
Orders
- ['The appeal against Development Control Order No. EPA2018/0279 relating to the premises at 57 Robertson Road, Scotland Island, is upheld.' 'Pursuant to s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Development Control Order No. EPA2018/0279 is modified to amend the time period for...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment