Lowe v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1229

Lowe v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1229

The clause 4.6 variation request could not be upheld because the proposed two storey form, continuation of the front wall, relocation of the roof form to the first floor, demolition of existing roof and fabric, and visible bulk and scale from Lamb Street were inconsistent with the floor space ratio objectives requiring compatibility with the desired future character and minimisation of bulk and scale impacts. Although the draft/current LEP floor space ratio standard of 0.9:1 was given significant weight, it did not override the heritage conservation, distinctive neighbourhood and DCP controls preserving the low scale cottage character. Because clause 4.6 was a precondition to consent and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal / Hearing After Mandatory Conciliation Conference Was Terminated
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'floor Space Ratio' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'draft Environmental Planning Instrument']
['planning and Environment' 'heritage Conservation'] ['development Application Refusal' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'floor Space Ratio' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'draft Environmental Planning Instrument']

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

Class 1 Development Appeal / Hearing After Mandatory Conciliation Conference Was Terminated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's requested variation to the floor space ratio development standard was well founded and worthy of support." 'Whether the impact of the proposed works on the significance of the Heritage Conservation Area was acceptable.' 'Whether additional on-site detention of stormwater was required as a result of the works.']

Ratio Decidendi

The clause 4.6 variation request could not be upheld because the proposed two storey form, continuation of the front wall, relocation of the roof form to the first floor, demolition of existing roof and fabric, and visible bulk and scale from Lamb Street were inconsistent with the floor space ratio objectives requiring compatibility with the desired future character and minimisation of bulk and scale impacts. Although the draft/current LEP floor space ratio standard of 0.9:1 was given significant weight, it did not override the heritage conservation, distinctive neighbourhood and DCP controls preserving the low scale cottage character. Because clause 4.6 was a precondition to consent and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The variation request pursuant to cl. 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 is not sustained.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application DA D/2017/371 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 25 Lamb Street Lilyfield is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned with the...