Wylie v Warringah Council [2000] NSWLEC 75

Wylie v Warringah Council [2000] NSWLEC 75

The appeal failed because the Court was not satisfied that, by reason of its location, the proposed development provided residents with reasonable and convenient access to required facilities, services and public transport under clause 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5. The walking distances to shops, medical services, recreation and bus stops were substantial and included steep access requiring steps and an inclinator, and the proposed weekday vehicle service did not provide convenient weekend access and demonstrated that the site was not conveniently located. The proposed development also had unacceptable impacts on adjoining properties at 5 and 6 Bangalla Place due to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Consent / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['state Environmental Planning Policy No. 5' 'housing for Older People and People With a Disability' 'reasonable Access to Services and Facilities' 'impact on Adjoining Properties']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['state Environmental Planning Policy No. 5' 'housing for Older People and People With a Disability' 'reasonable Access to Services and Facilities' 'impact on Adjoining Properties']

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

Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Consent / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development satisfied the mandatory requirements in clause 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5 for reasonable access to shops, services, recreation facilities, health services and transport.' 'Whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on adjoining properties at 5 and 6 Bangalla Place.' 'Whether the proposed provision of weekday vehicular trips overcame the difficulty of access to facilities and services.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Court was not satisfied that, by reason of its location, the proposed development provided residents with reasonable and convenient access to required facilities, services and public transport under clause 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5. The walking distances to shops, medical services, recreation and bus stops were substantial and included steep access requiring steps and an inclinator, and the proposed weekday vehicle service did not provide convenient weekend access and demonstrated that the site was not conveniently located. The proposed development also had unacceptable impacts on adjoining properties at 5 and 6 Bangalla Place due to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']