Blainey North and Associates Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (No 2)

Case [2021] NSWLEC 1678

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Blainey North & Associates Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1678
Hearing dates: 14 July 2021
Date of orders: 8 November 2021
Decision date: 08 November 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Pullinger AC
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The Appeal is upheld.

(2) Consent is granted to Modification Application DA-272/2019/2, as amended, for alterations and additions to the existing terrace dwelling at 7 Paddington Street, Paddington, subject to conditions set out in Annexures A and B.

(3) The exhibits are returned, except for C, 1 and 2.

Catchwords:

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – dwelling house – heritage conservation area – appeal upheld – orders

Cases Cited:

Blainey North & Associates Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2021] NSWLEC 1586

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Blainey North & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Galasso SC (Applicant)
P Rigg (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Dentons Australia (Applicant)
Peter Rigg, Solicitor and Barrister (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/350346
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: On 6 October 2021, I handed down my reasons in the Class 1 appeal Blainey North & Associates Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2021] NSWLEC 1586 (the Principal Judgment) and indicated that upon the satisfaction of certain directions, I would give consideration to the making of final orders.

  2. At the commencement of the hearing I had granted leave to the Applicant to amend the Modification Application as reflected in the architectural plans tendered as Exhibit C in the proceedings, and which formed the subject of the appeal.

  3. In the Principal Judgment, the Respondent was directed to effect lodgement of these plans amending the Modification Application on the NSW Planning Portal and to prepare corresponding conditions of consent reflecting the reasons set out in the judgment.

  4. Similarly, the Applicant was directed to file a copy of the amended Modification Application with the Court upon lodgement having been effected.

  5. The amended Modification Application was filed with the Court on 18 October 2021.

  6. The conditions of consent were filed with the Court on 29 October 2021.

  7. I am satisfied that the Modification Application, as amended, and conditions of consent accord with the Principal Judgment, and I now make the following orders to thereby dispose of the matter.

Orders

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Consent is granted to Modification Application DA-272/2019/2, as amended, for alterations and additions to the existing terrace dwelling at 7 Paddington Street, Paddington, subject to conditions set out in Annexures A and B

  3. The exhibits are returned, except for C, 1 and 2.

………………………

M Pullinger

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (155858, pdf)

Annexure B (570363, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Blainey North and Associates Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1678
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1678
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Blainey North and Associates Pty Ltd, the applicant, against Woollahra Municipal Council, the respondent. The applicant sought to appeal a decision of the Land and Environment Court, which had dismissed their application for modifications to a development approval for a terrace dwelling located at 7 Paddington Street, Paddington. The modifications included changes to the floor plan, the addition of a second storey, and the relocation of a carport. The applicant contended that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that there were no valid reasons to refuse the modifications. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the Council's decision to refuse the modifications was lawful, whether the Council had valid reasons for its decision, and whether the modifications would result in any adverse impacts on the surrounding area. The Court had to determine whether the modifications were consistent with the relevant planning scheme, whether they complied with the development approval, and whether they would cause any harm to the neighbourhood or contravene any applicable laws or regulations.

The Court found that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that there were no valid reasons to refuse the modifications. The Court held that the modifications were consistent with the relevant planning scheme and the development approval, and that they would not cause any harm to the neighbourhood or contravene any applicable laws or regulations. The Court found that the Council had not provided any evidence to support its decision to refuse the modifications, and that the modifications were necessary to achieve the applicant's legitimate development objectives. The Court also found that the modifications would not have any significant adverse impacts on the surrounding area, and that the Council's concerns about the impact on neighbouring properties were unfounded. The Court concluded that the modifications were reasonable and should be approved.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The Appeal is upheld.

(2) Consent is granted to Modification Application DA-272/2019/2, as amended, for alterations and additions to the existing terrace dwelling at 7 Paddington Street, Paddington, subject to conditions set out in Annexures A and B.

(3) The exhibits are returned, except for C, 1 and 2.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.