Bartlett v Marrickville Council [2009] NSWLEC 1166

Bartlett v Marrickville Council [2009] NSWLEC 1166

Although the proposed front carport would provide more convenient, safe and accessible parking than the existing rear garage arrangement, David Street was an exceptional and relatively intact Victorian and Federation streetscape in which carports and hard stands in front of houses were uncharacteristic. The DCP requirement for one car space per dwelling did not require existing Victorian and Federation houses to provide front parking and did not outweigh DCP 35 controls encouraging rear or side parking. The proposal would also replace one publicly available on-street space with one private off-street space, contrary to C16, and rear alternatives such as a shared hard stand/open space area...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Conciliation Conference Under S34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Did Not Reach Agreement and Consented to Disposal Under S 34(4)(b) Without a Further Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Demolition of Existing Garage and Construction of Carport' 'off Street Parking Location' 'impact on Existing Dwelling and Streetscape' 'residential Development Controls']
['planning and Environment' 'development Control' 'heritage and Streetscape'] ['development Application for Demolition of Existing Garage and Construction of Carport' 'off Street Parking Location' 'impact on Existing Dwelling and Streetscape' 'residential Development 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

Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Conciliation Conference Under S34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Did Not Reach Agreement and Consented to Disposal Under S 34(4)(b) Without a Further Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed carport forward of the dwelling would have an adverse impact on the dwelling and the character of David Street.' "Whether the applicant's need for convenient, safe and accessible off street parking outweighed DCP 35 objectives encouraging parking at the rear or side of dwellings." 'Whether the proposal complied with controls concerning loss of on-street kerbside parking and number of vehicular crossings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the proposed front carport would provide more convenient, safe and accessible parking than the existing rear garage arrangement, David Street was an exceptional and relatively intact Victorian and Federation streetscape in which carports and hard stands in front of houses were uncharacteristic. The DCP requirement for one car space per dwelling did not require existing Victorian and Federation houses to provide front parking and did not outweigh DCP 35 controls encouraging rear or side parking. The proposal would also replace one publicly available on-street space with one private off-street space, contrary to C16, and rear alternatives such as a shared hard stand/open space area...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The development application to demolish the existing garage and construct a carport at 15 David Street, Marrickville is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned.']