Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: James Bale v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1515 Hearing dates: 18, 19 September 2017 Date of orders: 22 September 2017 Decision date: 22 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: The Court Directs that:
1. The applicant is to file an updated BASIX certificate for the development by 9am 28 September 2017On filing of these documents, the Court will make the
(1) The appeal is upheld;
following orders:
(2) Consent is granted to Development Application No. 201600408 for demolition of part of the premises and ground and first floor alterations and additions at 16 Jarvie Avenue, Petersham (Lot 6, DP 14518) subject to conditions in Annexure A, incorporating the following additional operational condition:
Windows W6, W5, as shown on the architectural floor plan for Level 1, are to have fixed blade louvres to a height of 1800mm above the floor with downward inflection, and adjustable above that. The bathroom window (W4) is to be fitted with translucent film.
Reason: To ensure appropriate visual privacy for adjoining properties.
(3) The exhibits are returned with the exception of A, B, D and 1.Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL: against the refusal of alterations and additions to an existing dwelling – impacts on the significance of the heritage conservation area – amenity impacts on adjoining properties – compatibility of development with current and desired future character – impacts not sufficient to warrant refusal of application. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004Cases Cited: BGP Properties v Lake Macquarie City Council 138 LGERA 237; [2004] NSWLEC 399
Davies v Penrith City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1141Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: James Bale (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2017/00133768 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This appeal was lodged following the refusal by Inner West Council of development application number 201600408. The application sought approval for demolition of part of the existing dwelling as well as ground and first floor alterations and additions. The proposal is located at 16 Jarvie Avenue, Petersham (the Site). The main issue in the refusal was the works sought at the first floor.
-
The appeal was subject to mandatory conciliation on 18 September 2016 (34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (Court Act)), however agreement was not reached and conciliation was terminated. The proceedings were dealt with as a hearing. The parties consented to the admission of evidence given during the conciliation conference in the hearing (s 34AA(2)(b)(ii) Court Act).
-
The Council maintains that the development application should be refused for the following reasons:
The proposed development would have an unacceptable, adverse impact on the significance of the streetscape and the relevant heritage conservation area (HCA); and
The proposed development will set an undesirable precedent for future development within the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read James Bale 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 1515
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the refusal of the development application by the council was appropriate and in accordance with the relevant legislation and planning policies. The applicant argued that the council had not properly considered all the evidence provided and had failed to grant consent to the development application. The council, on the other hand, contended that the application did not meet the necessary requirements and was not in the best interest of the surrounding community. The court had to assess the merits of both arguments and determine the validity of the council's decision.
The court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was not in accordance with the law. The applicant had provided sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the BASIX certificate, and the council had failed to properly consider this evidence. Additionally, the court noted that the proposed alterations and additions to the property were not detrimental to the surrounding environment and would not cause undue harm to adjoining properties. As a result, the court granted the appeal and ordered that consent be granted to the development application, subject to certain conditions designed to ensure visual privacy for neighbouring properties. These conditions included the installation of fixed blade louvres and translucent film on specific windows.
In light of the court's decision, it was ordered that the applicant must file an updated BASIX certificate by 9 am on 28 September 2017. Upon the filing of these documents, the court would make the following orders: the appeal would be upheld, consent would be granted to the development application subject to the specified conditions, and the exhibits would be returned with the exception of A, B, D and 1.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court Directs that:
1. The applicant is to file an updated BASIX certificate for the development by 9am 28 September 2017
On filing of these documents, the Court will make the
following orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld;
(2) Consent is granted to Development Application No. 201600408 for demolition of part of the premises and ground and first floor alterations and additions at 16 Jarvie Avenue, Petersham (Lot 6, DP 14518) subject to conditions in Annexure A, incorporating the following additional operational condition:
Windows W6, W5, as shown on the architectural floor plan for Level 1, are to have fixed blade louvres to a height of 1800mm above the floor with downward inflection, and adjustable above that. The bathroom window (W4) is to be fitted with translucent film.
Reason: To ensure appropriate visual privacy for adjoining properties.
(3) The exhibits are returned with the exception of A, B, D and 1.
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.