Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Case Title: Carroll v Lane Cove Council Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWLEC 1223 Hearing Date(s): 2 and 3 May 2011 Decision Date: 03 August 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Murrell C
Decision: (1)The appeal in respect of the property known as 24 Wallace Street, Greenwich is upheld.
(2)The development application submitted to Lane Cove Council, and as amended and shown in exhibit M, is determined by the granting of consent, subject to the conditions in annexure A.
(3)The exhibits are returned to the parties with the exception of C, M, N, O and exhibit 9.Catchwords: APPEAL - Demolition and Erection of dwelling house; impact on heritage conservation area and adjoining heritage items, impact on streetscape, impact on views and privacy; setback from street; height of building and whether trafficable carport roof is appropriate in streetscape and its precedential effect
Legislation Cited: Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009
Cases Cited: Botany Bay City Council v Premier Customs Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 226 (3 August 2009)
Goldin and Another v Minister for Transport [2002] NSWLEC 75
Pafburn v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWLEC 444 (16 August 2005)
Super Studio v Waverley [2004] NSWLEC 91
Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167Texts Cited: Category: Principal judgment Parties: Greg and Collette Carroll (Applicant)
Lane Cove Council (Respondent)
Representation - Counsel: Counsel
Mr G McKee, Solicitor (Applicant)Mr S Griffiths, Solicitor (Respondent)
- Solicitors: Solicitors
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)Pikes Lawyers (Respondent)
File number(s): 11008 of 2010 Publication Restriction:
Judgment
The applicant in these proceedings is seeking to construct a part two and part three-storey dwelling house on and the land known as 24 Wallace Street Greenwich.
The appeal lodged with the Court was against the deemed refusal of the Council. However, leave was subsequently granted to change it as an appeal against conditions that attached to the consent granted by the council. In essence, the conditions appealed are in respect of a reduction in the ridge height of 600 mm, such that the ridge RL was not to exceed 39.231. That is condition 2(a). The other condition that the applicant is appealing is condition 2(b) that: the trafficable roof-terrace over the carport must be deleted and replaced with a non-trafficable roof.
Site and environs
The subject site is shown in the aerial photograph at figure 1. The western boundary of the site adjoins the footpath of the unformed portion of Upper Serpentine Road and at this point the land falls steeply away to the Greenwich Reserve on the foreshores of the Lane Cove River. The site rises gradually from the front boundary of Wallace Street to the rear boundary by approximately 3 m.
Wallace Street is a no through road, finishing where there is a dramatic drop in topography and the subject site is the last one on the southern side of the street. The site is within the Greenwich Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).
Currently on the site there is an existing two-storey…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Carroll v Lane Cove Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] NSWLEC 1223
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the council had acted lawfully in refusing the development application and whether there was merit in the appellant's contention that the refusal was unreasonable. The court needed to assess whether the council had correctly applied the relevant planning provisions and whether the appellant's application met the necessary criteria for approval. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were grounds to overturn the council's decision based on the evidence presented.
In its reasoning, the court found that the council had not adequately considered the appellant's application in light of the relevant planning laws and had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The court held that the council's refusal was unreasonable and that the appellant's development application should be approved. The court granted the appeal and directed that the development application, as amended and detailed in exhibit M, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in annexure A. The court ordered that the exhibits be returned to the parties, except for those specified in the order.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1)The appeal in respect of the property known as 24 Wallace Street, Greenwich is upheld.
(2)The development application submitted to Lane Cove Council, and as amended and shown in exhibit M, is determined by the granting of consent, subject to the conditions in annexure A.
(3)The exhibits are returned to the parties with the exception of C, M, N, O and exhibit 9.
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.