Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Glenn McCormack v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1559 Hearing dates: 13 and 14 March 2017 Date of orders: 05 October 2017 Decision date: 05 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See orders at [155]
Catchwords: Development Application: demolition of existing structures; construction of mixed used buildings in zone B4 zone; weight to IDAP 2013; cl 4.6 request to contravene development standard for building heights and floor space ration; transition between zones B4 and R2. Legislation Cited: Ashfield Local Environment Plan 2013
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Roads Act 1993
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat DevelopmentCases Cited: Adul-Rahman v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1122
Four2Five Pty Ltd V Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009
Seaside Property Developments Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC117
Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] LECNSW 472
Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827; (2007) 156 LGERA 446Texts Cited: Apartment Design Guide, NSW Department of Planning and Environment 2015
Ashfield Development Control Plan 2016 Part 3 Ashfield West
Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy (IDAP) 2013 Part C4 Ashfield WestCategory: Principal judgment Parties: Glenn McCormack (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
A. Pickles SC (Applicant)
P Jackson (Respondent)Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/174498 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
Background
-
COMMISSIONER: Glenn McCormack (the Applicant) has appealed the deemed refusal by Inner West Council (the Respondent) of Development Application No. 10.2016.060, lodged with Council on 23 March 2016, for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of two multi-storey buildings (referred to as Buildings A and B) in Croydon.
-
The proposed development is located on two lots, proposed for consolidation, and which together constitute the Subject Site. They are:
1 Lion St, Croydon (formally identified as Lot 130 in DP 130140). Building A is proposed to be located on this lot, and comprises a mixed use development including retail premises and shop top housing.
402 Liverpool Rd, Croydon (formally identified as Lot 1 in DP 104258). A portion of Building A extends onto this lot, along with all of Building B which consists of a three story residential flat building with basement car parking.
-
The Subject Site has an irregular shape with a principal frontage to Liverpool Road and smaller frontage to Lion Street.
-
The site is generally flat, with some minor undulations. It is bounded by:
to the west: Dobroyd Canal/Iron Cove Creek;
to the south of the 1 Lion Street portion of the site: the lot at 3 Lion Street, on which is situated a single story dwelling at;
to the south and west of the 402 Liverpool Road portion of the site: low density residential areas, parts of which have heritage status, including,
to the south: two semi-detached houses on Norton Street (nos 227-229 and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Glenn McCormack v Inner West 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
- [2017] NSWLEC 1559
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the council had acted within its statutory powers when it enacted the breed-specific dog ban, and whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the council had provided sufficient evidence to support the assertion that the breeds in question posed a significant risk to public safety, and if the measures imposed were proportionate to the risk identified.
In examining the council's decision-making process, the court found that the council had acted within its legislative authority. The evidence presented indicated that the breeds specified in the ban posed a higher risk to public safety compared to other breeds, which justified the council's decision. The court also determined that the council had followed proper procedures in making its decision, including the consideration of expert opinions and community input. As a result, the court upheld the council's decision as lawful and reasonable, dismissing the plaintiff's claims of discrimination. The orders were made as detailed in paragraph [155] of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [155]
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.