Shulkin v Waverley Council [2008] NSWLEC 1255

Shulkin v Waverley Council [2008] NSWLEC 1255

The proposal met at least one relevant zone objective, and the impacts of the single-width driveway and basement access were acceptable when assessed on their merits under the planning controls. Although part of the grassed bank and lower sandstone retaining wall would be affected, the design retained the main sandstone boundary wall, added sandstone retaining walls, avoided a fortress wall effect, and would not unreasonably detract from the St Thomas Street streetscape. The residents' concerns about views, scale and excavation did not justify modification or refusal because relevant controls were generally complied with or impacts could be managed by consent conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Hearing and Determination Pursuant to S 34(4)(b) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 After Conciliation Conference Terminated
Outcome
Appeal upheld and conditional development consent granted.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'streetscape Impacts' 'vehicular Access' 'basement Car Parking' 'excavation' 'view Loss' 'waverley Planning Controls']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'streetscape Impacts' 'vehicular Access' 'basement Car Parking' 'excavation' 'view Loss' 'waverley Planning Controls']

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 / Hearing and Determination Pursuant to S 34(4)(b) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 After Conciliation Conference Terminated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether impacts of the proposed vehicular entrance on the St Thomas Street streetscape warranted refusal of the development application.' 'Whether concerns about view loss, building scale and excavation required modification or refusal of the application.' 'Whether proposed off-street parking and vehicular access were acceptable under the applicable Waverley planning controls.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal met at least one relevant zone objective, and the impacts of the single-width driveway and basement access were acceptable when assessed on their merits under the planning controls. Although part of the grassed bank and lower sandstone retaining wall would be affected, the design retained the main sandstone boundary wall, added sandstone retaining walls, avoided a fortress wall effect, and would not unreasonably detract from the St Thomas Street streetscape. The residents' concerns about views, scale and excavation did not justify modification or refusal because relevant controls were generally complied with or impacts could be managed by consent conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and conditional development consent granted.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Conditional development consent is granted.']