Lea G & Anor v Waverley Council

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Lea G & Anor v Waverley Council [2007] NSWLEC 617
PARTIES: APPLICANT:
Graham Lea & Orel Lea
RESPONDENT:
Waverley Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10513 of 2007
CORAM: Watts C at 1
KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- Bulk, height and scale
LEGISLATION CITED: Waverley Local Environment Plan 1996, (WLEP)
Waverley Development Control Plan 2006, (WDCP)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss79C and 97
CASES CITED: Pafburn v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWLEC 444;
Tenacity v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140;
Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428;
Zhang v Canterbury (2001) 115 LGERA 37
DATES OF HEARING: 17 September2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 17 September 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT:
Mr V Conomos, solicitor
SOLICITORS:
Pike Pike and Fenwick

RESPONDENT:
Mr S Patterson, solicitor
SOLICITORS:
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers



JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Watts C

17 September 2007

10513 of 2007 - Graham Lea & Orel Lea v Waverley Council

JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the decision of the Waverley Council (the council) to refuse a development application to demolish the existing building and to erect two attached dwellings at Lot 14, Section 2, DP 770, being No 11 Kent Street, Waverley.


2 I visited the land in company with the parties on the morning of the hearing and heard from local residents.


3 I have concluded that the application should fail as a result of excessive bulk and the southern wall jutting past the line of the abutting dwelling and cutting off water views.

The land

4 The land is situated on the south (lower) side of Kent Street, near the intersection with Firth Street. It is rectangular in plan with a frontage to Kent Street of 15.24m, a depth of around 35.76m and an area of 545m2. The land slopes steeply away from the street such that the rear of the site is 5.75m below street level. Ocean views are afforded from and across the land to the southeast.


5 Erected on the land is a single-storey weatherboard cottage, which is located below street level, such that only the roof is visible at the horizon line. The land is extensively landscaped with mature trees in the front setback area and in the southwest corner.


6 The streetscape of Kent Street is an eclectic mix of buildings, some three-storey terraced style and some semi-detached dwellings adjoining to the west, built to the street and side boundaries. To the east is a two-storey dwelling set significantly back from the street boundary at the same, lower level, as the dwelling on the subject land.


7 Further to the east, dwellings are of varying architectural styles, ages and siting along the street. The northern side of the street generally comprises substantial brick two-storey dwellings.

Relevant planning controls

Waverley Local Environment Plan 1996, (WLEP)

8 Under the provisions of the WLEP the land…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lea G & Anor v Waverley 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
[2007] NSWLEC 617
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Lea G and another against the Waverley Council in relation to a planning decision. The council had refused to grant a development application for a residential apartment building. The dispute came before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, where the council's decision was challenged on several grounds, including whether the decision was unreasonable and whether there were procedural errors. The legal issues at hand were whether the council's decision was lawful and whether there were any procedural flaws in the decision-making process. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of administrative law in relation to the council's decision-making powers. The court also considered the evidence presented and the submissions made by both parties.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and that there were no procedural errors. The court held that the council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and that the decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The court also found that the council had not acted in an arbitrary or irrational manner. In relation to the appeal, the court held that the appellants had not demonstrated that the council's decision was so unreasonable as to amount to a failure to exercise the council's statutory powers and functions. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the decision of the council be upheld. The court did not make any orders in relation to costs. This decision provides guidance on the standard of review applicable to planning decisions and the factors that the court will consider in determining whether a decision is unreasonable. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that planning decisions are properly reasoned and supported by evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

39 My orders are:

1. The appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is dismissed.

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.