De Angelis v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 1148

De Angelis v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 1148

The appeal was dismissed because the applicants did not discharge the onus of showing that the proposed on site car parking would satisfy peak demand, and the parking deficiency was sufficient by itself to justify refusal. The proposal also failed to have adequate regard to the character and amenity of adjacent and nearby residential areas: the loading dock and access way along the boundary concentrated noise at the worst location, required imposing acoustic treatment, provided little landscaping, and the Holmhale Street elevation created unacceptable bulk and massing. The interface with Maynard Park was also unacceptable because the building isolated rather than integrated with the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application LUA 12/0193 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and Development Application LUA 12/0193 is refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Retail/residential Development' 'car Parking and Pedestrian Access' 'height, Bulk, Siting, Massing and Roofscape' 'residential Amenity and Streetscape Character' 'interface With Public Open Space' 'economic Impact on Bowral Town Centre' 'heritage Impact']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Assessment' 'heritage' 'economic Impact'] ['development Application for Retail/residential Development' 'car Parking and Pedestrian Access' 'height, Bulk, Siting, Massing and Roofscape' 'residential Amenity and Streetscape Character' 'interface With Public Open Space' 'economic Impact on Bowral Town Centre' 'heritage Impact']

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 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application LUA 12/0193 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development provided sufficient on site car parking to satisfy peak demand.' 'Whether pedestrian access arrangements across Bowral Street were acceptable.' 'Whether the height, bulk, siting, massing and roofscape had an unacceptable impact on the character, streetscape and amenity of nearby residential areas.' 'Whether the proposed development created an acceptable interface with Maynard Park and Lions Park.' 'Whether the proposed development was inappropriate in its strategic context outside the Bowral town centre.' 'Whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable economic impact on the Bowral town centre.' 'Whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the heritage qualities of Bowral.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the applicants did not discharge the onus of showing that the proposed on site car parking would satisfy peak demand, and the parking deficiency was sufficient by itself to justify refusal. The proposal also failed to have adequate regard to the character and amenity of adjacent and nearby residential areas: the loading dock and access way along the boundary concentrated noise at the worst location, required imposing acoustic treatment, provided little landscaping, and the Holmhale Street elevation created unacceptable bulk and massing. The interface with Maynard Park was also unacceptable because the building isolated rather than integrated with the...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed and Development Application LUA 12/0193 is refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application LUA 12/0193 for a retail/residential development at Bowral Street, Moss Vale Road and Holmhale Street, Bowral is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 1 and A.']