Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Chisholm v Pittwater Council and Anor [2000] NSWLEC 143 PARTIES: APPLICANT:
Samuel ChisholmFIRST RESPONDENT:
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Pittwater Council
Willeroon Pty LtdFILE NUMBER(S): 40046 of 2000 CORAM: Talbot J KEY ISSUES: Development Consent :- whether decision manifestly unreasonable - whether irrelevant matters taken into account - procedural fairness - jurisdictional fact/precondition LEGISLATION CITED: Interpretation Act 1987 s 8
Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993 cl 32CASES CITED: Canyonleigh Environment Protection Society Inc v Wingecarribee Shire Council (1997) 95 LGERA 294;
Clifford and Anor v Wyong Shire Council (1996) 89 LGERA 240;
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission and Anor (2000) 106 LGERA 419;
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Anor v Peko-Wallsend Ltd and Ors (1986) 162 CLR 24;
Nashville Investments Pty Ltd v Gull Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd and Ors (1998) 103 LGERA 1;
Project Blue Sky Inc and Ors v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355;
Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL and Ors (1999) 102 LGERA 52DATES OF HEARING: 29/05/2000, 30/05/2000, 31/05/2000, 01/06/2000, 02/06/2000 DATE OF JUDGMENT:
07/11/2000LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT:
Mr N A Hemmings QC (Solicitor)
SOLICITORS:
Allen Allen & HemsleyFIRST RESPONDENT:
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Mr R P Lancaster (Barrister)
SOLICITORS:
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Mr P D McClellan QC with Mr A E Galasso (Barrister)
SOLICITORS:
Deacons Graham & James
JUDGMENT:
IN THE LAND AND Matter No. 40046 of 2000
ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Talbot J
OF NEW SOUTH WALES Decision Date: 11 July, 2000
Second Respondent
1. The building at No 35 Ocean Road, Palm Beach, known as “Willeroon”, is generally described as reminiscent of the “Californian Bungalow” style of dwelling. Built in 1923 by Clive Pemberton Curlewis, it has been the subject of a number of studies and is characterised by deep elevated verandahs, major gable forms in timber, sweeping roof forms, heavy masonry pylons or piers and an architectural focus on outdoor living. Willeroon was first listed as a building of heritage significance by the National Trust in 1979.
2. The second respondent, Willeroon Pty Ltd, is the owner of Willeroon. On 3 December 1998 the second respondent lodged a development application with the first respondent seeking consent to demolish the existing building and construct a three storey dwelling with associated carparking and a separate cabana structure closer to the Ocean Street frontage of the property. The application was last amended in September 1999.
3. On 13 December 1999 the council resolved to approve the development application.
4. The subject property is within zone 2(a) Residential “A” and 6(a) Existing Recreation “A” under Pittwater LEP 1993 (“the LEP”).
5. LEP Amendment No. 32, proclaimed in June 1999, updates the heritage provisions of the LEP and protects the heritage significance of properties fronting Ocean Road between Ocean Place and Hordern Park, Palm Beach including the subject property, by creating a heritage conservation…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Chisholm v Pittwater 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
- [2000] NSWLEC 143
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide involved the interpretation of the planning laws and the discretionary powers exercised by the council in making its decision. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council's decision was legally sound and whether it complied with the relevant planning policies and objectives. The applicant argued that the council had erred in its interpretation of the law and had not properly considered the impact of the decision on the local community.
The court examined the relevant legislation and case law to understand the scope of the council's discretion. It considered whether the council's decision was within the bounds of rationality and whether there was any procedural unfairness. The court found that the council had acted within its lawful powers and had followed a proper process in making its decision. The applicant's arguments regarding the interpretation of the planning laws were not persuasive, and the court held that the council's decision was legally sound.
The formal orders of the Court were that the application by Mr. Chisholm to set aside the council's decision was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld. The court's judgment reinforced the importance of adhering to legal processes and correctly interpreting planning laws in making decisions that affect the community.
Orders
Orders of the court
99. The formal orders of the Court are:-
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.