Chisholm v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1062

Chisholm v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1062

The applicant's proposal does not satisfy the heritage conservation controls under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan, as it fails to adequately retain the original character and is considered lacking in responsiveness and architectural merit. The burden of proof was not met by the applicant; therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the development application refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'heritage Conservation' 'local Environmental Plans' 'development Control Plans' 'low Density Residential Zoning']
['planning and Environment Law' 'heritage Law'] ['development Applications' 'heritage Conservation' 'local Environmental Plans' 'development Control Plans' 'low Density Residential Zoning']

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 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed alterations and additions to a dwelling within a heritage conservation area satisfy relevant heritage conservation provisions' 'Whether the development application properly balances heritage conservation with other planning objectives under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's proposal does not satisfy the heritage conservation controls under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan, as it fails to adequately retain the original character and is considered lacking in responsiveness and architectural merit. The burden of proof was not met by the applicant; therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the development application refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application No. 0021/18 for alterations and additions to an existing detached dwelling at 5 Matong Street Gordon is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibits 1, A, B and C.']