Leonard v Ku-ring-gai Council

Link copied
Case Copied 39 min read

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION:

Leonard v Ku-ring-gai Council [2005] NSWLEC 126

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Mr B Leonard and Carnegie Credit Management Services Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT
Ku-ring-gai Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11389 of 2004

CORAM:

Moore C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :-
Dual occupancy
Character of area
.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 149
Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948
State Environmental Planning Policy 53
Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance
Residential Design Manual – Development Control Plan 38
.

CASES CITED:

Leonard v Ku-ring-gai Council [2004] NSWLEC 330;
Segal & Anor v Waverley Council [2004] NSWLEC 363;
Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140;
.

DATES OF HEARING: 18 and 22 March 2005
 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 


03/30/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANTS
Mr A Galasso, barrister
INSTRUCTED BY
Maddocks Solicitors

RESPONDENT
Ms J Jagot, barrister
INSTRUCTED BY
Deacons Solicitors


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      MOORE C

      30 March 2005

      04/11389 B Leonard & Carnegie Credit Management Services Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

      JUDGMENT

Introduction

1 Commissioner: This is an appeal pursuant to s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) against the deemed (and subsequent actual) refusal by Ku-ring-gai Council (the council) of Development Application 997/04 for construction of three dwellings on what is presently Lot D in DP 324517, known as 20 Warwick Street, Killara (the site). As the council has approved a subdivision of the site into two allotments, the present application seeks consent to construct a single dwelling on the proposed allotment fronting Warwick Street and a detached dual occupancy development on the proposed rear, battle-axe allotment.

2 In June 2004, Cowdroy J dealt with (and refused) Development Application 1652/03 to construct two detached dual occupancy developments on the site (subdivided in a slightly different configuration): see Leonard v Ku-ring-gai Council [2004] NSWLEC 330.

3 As a consequence, the position is that, if I reached a factual conclusion on any issue which differed from that reached by Cowdroy J, I would be obliged to articulate my reasons for drawing such different conclusion: see Segal & Anor v Waverley Council [2004] NSWLEC 363.

The site

4 The site has an area of 2928 sq m. It has a frontage to Warwick Street of 41.7 m and a depth of ~ 70 m. It is located on the western (low) side of Warwick Street. Although the site is not squarely east-west oriented, for the purposes of this decision, I will treat the Warwick Street boundary as being to the east.

5 The site slopes ~ 13 m from front to rear. It also slopes, more gently, down from south to north. A watercourse follows the northern boundary of the site. A number of large trees, mainly Sydney Blue Gums, are growing beside the creek or in the riparian zone. Other trees are scattered throughout the site, which is currently developed with a single dwelling house located towards the centre of the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Leonard v Ku-ring-gai 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
[2005] NSWLEC 126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Leonard v Ku-ring-gai Council, the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales heard an appeal by Mr B Leonard and Carnegie Credit Management Services Pty Ltd against the refusal by Ku-ring-gai Council of a development application for three dwellings on a site at 20 Warwick Street, Killara. The site is zoned residential 2(b) under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance, and dual occupancy development is not permissible within this zone. However, State Environmental Planning Policy No 53 - Metropolitan Residential Development overrides the KPSO to permit dual occupancy development, subject to various tests. The primary issue in contention was whether the proposed dual occupancy contributed to the character of the area as required by SEPP 53. The court found that the proposed dual occupancy did not contribute to an attractive residential environment with clear character and identity, as it would appear as one homogenous development with little separation between the houses, contrary to the character of the area. The court also found that the proposed single dwelling on the Warwick Street frontage was generally compliant with the KPSO and the Residential Design Manual – Development Control Plan. The court indicated that, if the applicants wished, it would grant consent for the proposed single dwelling on the Warwick Street frontage, subject to conditions. The applicants were given directions to advise the court and the council of their intentions regarding the consent for the proposed single dwelling on the Warwick Street frontage, and to file and serve plans and conditions accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.