Ross v Lane Cove Council

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ross v Lane Cove Council [2012] NSWLEC 1364
Hearing dates:18 and 19 December 2012
Decision date: 19 December 2012
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon C
Decision:

See paragraphs 21 & 22

Catchwords: Modification application:-retrospective approval of modification to a residential dwelling; amenity/privacy impacts, bulk and whether the development as modified is substantially the same
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Lane Cove Development Plan 2010
Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009
Sydney Harbour Foreshore DCP
Sydney Regional Environmental plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Mr R Ross (Applicant)

Lane Cove Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Mr R O'Gorman-Hughes Barrister (Applicant)

Mr S Griffiths (Respondent)
Solicitors
Duncan Scott Solicitors (Applicant)

Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):11079 of 2012

Ex tempore Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

  1. The Council has issued development consent for the construction of a large dwelling house at 8 Bayview Street, Northwood (the site). The applicant has commenced development in accordance with the development consent - (DA325/07) dated 2 April 2008- but carried out unauthorised modifications to the approved design. He seeks approval of the modifications and has lodged a modification application under section 96 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act) to modify the consent retrospectively.

  1. The modification application was referred to the Council's Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) for determination. The application was refused on 2 October 2012. This is an appeal under s 96(2) of the Act against that decision.

  1. The background facts and relevant statutory controls are set out in the Council's Statement of Facts and Contentions (Exhibit 1). It describes the site as located on the eastern side of Bayview Street, which ends at the northern edge of the site. The allotment is irregular in shape and falls toward the street and rises very steeply toward the eastern boundary.

  1. The Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP) zones the site R2-Low Density Residential and the development is permissible with consent. The Lane Cove Development Plan 2010 (DCP) and Sydney Regional Environmental plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 and Sydney Harbour Foreshore DCP also apply. Other relevant statutory controls are set out in Exhibit 1.

  1. Neighbouring the site to the south is a two-storey brick and tile dwelling house. Toward the north is a two-storey dwelling house separated by a vehicular driveway that leads to a dwelling house towards the north west. Both of the adjoining neighbours object to the application.

  1. The matter was heard pursuant to s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979(the LEC Act). Therefore, the proceedings commenced onsite with a view before the parties entered into a Court facilitated conciliation. A number of local residents attended the view and addressed the Court about their objections to the development. Their written submissions, received by the Council during the exhibition period, are in evidence in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ross v Lane Cove 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
[2012] NSWLEC 1364
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ross v Lane Cove Council, the parties involved were a property owner, Mr Ross, and the Lane Cove Council. The dispute arose from an action where the Council sought to enforce a planning permit condition on the property, which Mr Ross claimed was invalid and had not been properly served. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether the Council had correctly served the planning permit and condition, and if the condition was valid and enforceable. Mr Ross argued that the permit and condition were not properly served, as required by the Local Government Act 1993. Additionally, he contested the validity of the condition itself, asserting that it was unreasonable and not in accordance with the planning scheme. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that the permit and condition were valid and properly served, and that they should be enforced.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the Council had indeed served the planning permit and condition correctly, in accordance with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court determined that the condition was valid and enforceable, as it was reasonable and aligned with the planning scheme. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Ross's claims and upheld the Council's right to enforce the condition.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Ross must comply with the planning permit and condition, and that the Council's application was to be granted. Additionally, the court awarded costs to the Council in relation to the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs 21 & 22

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.