Johnston v Blue Mountains City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 45 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Johnston v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1220
Hearing dates:19, 20, 23 May 2011
Decision date: 08 July 2011
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

Appeal upheld subject to conditions

Catchwords: Development application; subdivision; access to bush fire prone land; tree removal and zone objectives
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2005
Rural Fires Act 1997
State Environmental Planning Policy No 1: Development Standards
Dividing Fences Act 1991
Conveyancing Act 1919
Cases Cited: BGP Properties v Lake Macquarie City Council [2004] NSWLEC 399
Cecil D Barker & Co v Blue Mountains City Council [2001] NSWLEC 244
Winton Property Group Ltd v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46
Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827
Allen and anor v Cessnock City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1179
Texts Cited: Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Ms B Johnston (Applicant)

Blue Mountains City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel
Mr O'Gorman-Hughes (Applicant)
Solicitors
Yates Beaggi Lawyers (Applicant)

Mr A Seton (Respondent)
Marsdens Law Group
File Number(s):10079 of 2011

Judgment

  1. This is an appeal pursuant to s 97(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the refusal by Blue Mountains City Council (the council) of Development Application No. S/56/2008 for a 10 lot subdivision of Lot 27 DP 212973 112 Cleopatra Street, Blackheath (the site).

  1. The contentions raised by the council can be summarised as:

  • Non-compliance with the development standard for road access to bush fire prone land in cl 84(3) of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 1995 (BLEP)
  • Adverse impact on the landscape character and traditional garden setting of the locality because of the proposed extensive removal of trees and is thus inconsistent with the objectives of the zone
  • Unacceptable impacts on trees on adjoining properties resulting from the removal of trees from the site
  • Not in the public interest because of the risks and burdens imposed on the owners of adjoining properties.

The site and the locality

  1. The site occupies an irregularly shaped central portion of the block bounded by Cleopatra, Cross and Romaine Streets and Govetts Leap Road Blackheath. The site is 1.66 ha with a street frontage of 18.9m to Cleopatra Street and a 22.5m frontage to Cross Street. The long axis of the site runs from northwest to southeast.

  1. A two storey dwelling with driveway access off Cleopatra Street currently exists on the site. The site is surrounded by residential development of single dwellings on generally large blocks of land with established trees. Two heritage items listed in Schedule 6 of the BLEP adjoin the site; 'Cleopatra' to the south and 'Balquhain' to the west.

  1. The site is dominated by mature Pinus radiata trees and a weedy understorey. There is some native vegetation in the northern corner of the site and a domestic garden adjacent to the dwelling. There are some mature deciduous and other exotic trees to the northeast of the 'Cleopatra'…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Johnston v Blue Mountains City 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] NSWLEC 1220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Johnston against Blue Mountains City Council regarding a decision to deny a development application for the construction of a residential building on a specified property. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Johnston sought to challenge the council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and not in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was lawful and whether it had properly considered the relevant planning legislation, policies, and environmental factors. Johnston contended that the council had failed to appropriately assess the merits of the development application and had not adequately considered the potential environmental impacts. The council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was in line with the statutory requirements and had taken into account all relevant considerations.

The court found that the council had indeed erred in its assessment of the development application. It was determined that the council had failed to properly consider the potential environmental impacts and had not adequately addressed the merits of the proposal. The court also found that the council had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which was a breach of the statutory requirements. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, subject to certain conditions being met by Johnston before a new development application could be submitted. The court ordered that the council review the application afresh, taking into account the findings of the appeal and the relevant planning legislation and policies.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal upheld subject to conditions

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.