Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Ryder v Randwick City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1590 Hearing dates: 30-31 May 2024 Date of orders: 25 September 2024 Decision date: 25 September 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Porter C Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Development application No. 418/2023 for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a first-floor addition, new basement garage and works on public land at 241 Darley Road Randwick is determined by refusal of consent.
(3) The exhibits are returned except for A, B and 2.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – garage – road reserve - retaining wall - streetscape impacts – public domain - heritage conservation area – character
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34AA
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 37, 38
Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 5.10
Cases Cited: Texts Cited: Randwick Development Control Plan 2023
GML Heritage Study 2003
GML Heritage Study 2009
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Katie Louise Ryder (First Applicant)
Michael John Boman (Second Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R White (Applicants)
A Pearman (Respondent)
Project Lawyers (Applicants)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/330612 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
COMMISSIONER: The Applicants, Katie Louise Ryder and Michael John Boman (Ryder & Boman) have appealed pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against Randwick City Council’s (Council) deemed refusal of development application no. 418/2023 (DA). The DA seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a first-floor addition, partial removal of Council’s sandstone retaining wall, excavation for a new basement garage and crossover to kerb, new Council pedestrian stairs and footbridge and associated works at 241 Darley Road, Randwick, legally described as Lot 119 DP 3024 (site).
-
The appeal is a residential appeal and in accordance with s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), commenced as a conciliation conference. As agreement could not be reached between the parties to resolve the issues, the conciliation conference was terminated, and the hearing commenced immediately. The parties agreed for the evidence from the site viewing and conciliation discussions to be considered in the hearing.
-
As a result of joint expert reporting and discussions between the parties, the only remaining contention pressed by Council was the garage access through the sandstone retaining wall located on public land.
-
As set out below, I find that the proposed development warrants refusal as it would introduce a significant breach to the unbroken sandstone retaining wall, significant changes to the public domain and would be incompatible with the character of the streetscape, contrary to the intent of the planning controls.
Amended application
-
At the hearing, Ryder & Boman sought and were granted leave to amend the DA pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the Environmental Planning and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ryder v Randwick 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWLEC 1590
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the Council's decision to refuse consent for the development application was lawful, rational, and supported by proper consideration of relevant factors. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the development application complied with the applicable planning schemes and whether the refusal was based on relevant and sufficient grounds. The court also considered the potential impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding environment and community, including any breaches of planning policies or zoning regulations.
In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court found that the Council's decision to refuse consent was well-founded and in accordance with the planning laws. The reasons for refusal included non-compliance with certain planning policies, potential adverse environmental impacts, and the inability of the proposed development to align with the character and scale of the surrounding area. The court held that the Council had appropriately exercised its discretion and provided adequate reasons for its decision. Consequently, the appeal by Ryder was dismissed, and the development application was refused consent. The exhibits submitted in the case were ordered to be returned, except for certain specified documents.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Development application No. 418/2023 for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a first-floor addition, new basement garage and works on public land at 241 Darley Road Randwick is determined by refusal of consent.
(3) The exhibits are returned except for A, B and 2.
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.