Court paves way for demolition of Sydney waterfront mansion
He said the significance of the HCA 'would be maintained even with the demolition of the existing building'.
'[It] does not seem to me that there is substantial evidence to suggest that the building could not be retained and possibly adapted to include a perhaps further 'stripping back' to the early built form,' Walsh said.
'However, this move would seem to me to bring only very limited benefit in heritage conservation terms.'
No blanket prohibition
The council noted during the first round of court hearings in October that the Leichhardt Development Control Plan included an objective to 'ensure that heritage items or buildings in a heritage conservation area are only demolished where they cannot be reasonably retained or conserved'.
But the commissioner said this could not be interpreted as a 'blanket policy' because it was at odds with the Inner West Local Environmental Plan, which trumped it. That plan permits demolition of a heritage item or building in a heritage conservation area with development consent.
A heritage impact statement submitted as part of the development application said the existing structures were 'of low merit, of locally atypical form, and without heritage significance'.
Foreshore development
The appeal was focused on a series of technical legal questions. The council contended that the commissioner had fallen into legal error, including by granting consent for a development that would encroach into the foreshore area, as the original building did.
The appeal argued that the proposed development was prohibited, and consent could only have been granted if it involved an 'extension, alteration or rebuilding of an existing building'.
The chief judge said this was not the case. The land was zoned general residential and the proposed development 'was not prohibited on the site under any circumstances', he said.
A development standard prevented consent from being granted if the proposal encroached into the foreshore area, but there is some flexibility in how development standards are applied.
Development consent may be granted in some cases even if a proposal contravenes such a standard, as it was granted in this case.
'Better ways to mediate disputes'
Following changes to planning laws in 2017, development applications in Greater Sydney and Wollongong are decided by council staff or local planning panels rather than elected councillors.
Loading
Darcy Byrne, mayor of Inner West Council, said: 'Councillors are legally removed from involvement in development applications, so we've had no role in this legal matter, but we certainly accept the court's determination.
'In my view, it's important that we reduce the frequency and cost of matters ending up in the Land and Environment Court.
'There are better and less costly ways to mediate disputes and determine development applications.'
In May, the court granted development consent for alterations and additions to a heritage-listed Victorian Georgian harbourside villa in Balmain's Campbell Lane and the construction of two attached dwellings behind it.
But the court refused consent this month for a controversial proposal to convert a 32-bedroom boarding house in Paddington into four luxury homes.
'The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of affordable rental boarding house accommodation, and it is reasonable to seek its continued operation,' the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
17 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
It may be a $380k cash cow. But is Sydney's biggest billboard also an eyesore?
Sydney's biggest billboard could continue to feature on the city skyline for three more years as part of a deal that might earn Inner West Council more than $300,000 in revenue from a major advertising company. Eye Drive Sydney, a subsidiary of outdoor advertiser oOh!media, is seeking approval from the NSW government to extend the life of the 170 metre-long billboard on the Glebe Island silos, overlooking Anzac Bridge. The billboard – which thousands of motorists pass each day – was erected in the 1990s as a temporary structure to promote the Sydney Olympics. However, over the years, rolling extensions have kept it in place. Now Eye Drive Sydney has applied to the Planning Department to continue operating the billboard for another three years, saying an extension will 'reinforce the landmark quality of the silos structure'. The move has sparked resistance among residents, community groups and the City of Sydney Council, which has called for the billboard to be removed. If Eye Drive Sydney gains the extension, it has offered to pay Inner West Council $127,000 a year in a 'public benefit' deal that could be used to produce 'socio-economic benefits'. In a submission to the department, Inner West Council has not opposed the extension and said it 'does not anticipate any adverse impacts' if the approval is granted. The council's position puts it at odds with the City of Sydney Council, which has called for the billboard to be removed.
The Age
17 hours ago
- The Age
It may be a $380k cash cow. But is Sydney's biggest billboard also an eyesore?
Sydney's biggest billboard could continue to feature on the city skyline for three more years as part of a deal that might earn Inner West Council more than $300,000 in revenue from a major advertising company. Eye Drive Sydney, a subsidiary of outdoor advertiser oOh!media, is seeking approval from the NSW government to extend the life of the 170 metre-long billboard on the Glebe Island silos, overlooking Anzac Bridge. The billboard – which thousands of motorists pass each day – was erected in the 1990s as a temporary structure to promote the Sydney Olympics. However, over the years, rolling extensions have kept it in place. Now Eye Drive Sydney has applied to the Planning Department to continue operating the billboard for another three years, saying an extension will 'reinforce the landmark quality of the silos structure'. The move has sparked resistance among residents, community groups and the City of Sydney Council, which has called for the billboard to be removed. If Eye Drive Sydney gains the extension, it has offered to pay Inner West Council $127,000 a year in a 'public benefit' deal that could be used to produce 'socio-economic benefits'. In a submission to the department, Inner West Council has not opposed the extension and said it 'does not anticipate any adverse impacts' if the approval is granted. The council's position puts it at odds with the City of Sydney Council, which has called for the billboard to be removed.
West Australian
24-07-2025
- West Australian
Coal mine stalled in 'groundbreaking' climate decision
A controversial coal mine expansion has hit a stumbling block after a court found possible climate change harms had not been fully considered, a ruling that could have implications for other fossil fuel projects. A community environment group from the NSW Hunter region successfully challenged an Independent Planning Commission decision to allow the expansion of the Mount Pleasant open-cut mine, near Muswellbrook. Operator MACH Energy applied to deepen the mine and double its output, extending its life for 22 years to enable the extraction of an additional 406 megatonnes of coal. The commission consented to the expansion in September 2022 and a judicial review brought by the community group was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court two years later. Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group took its fight to the Court of Appeal, arguing the environment court had erred and the commission failed to consider the likely climate effects in the region. The Court of Appeal on Thursday found the commission had accepted the project's emissions would contribute to global climate change, but there was nothing in its reasons to indicate it had considered the local impacts. The commission's consent referred to Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement, noting that the mine's emissions would be "accounted for" in the countries where the coal was burnt. "The commission's obligation to consider the likely impacts of the development on the natural and built environment in the locality of the mine ... required it to address the potentially adverse effects of climate change in the locality," the judgment said. "This obligation could not be discharged by general references to the effects of global warming on the planet generally." Environmental lawyer Elaine Johnson, the director of the firm that represented the community group, said the court's decision was groundbreaking. "The NSW Court of Appeal has just confirmed that the local impacts of climate change on communities are a direct consequence of continued fossil fuel production in NSW," Ms Johnson said in a statement. "From today, climate harm must be specifically considered when deciding proposals for fossil fuel expansions." NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson also said it was a significant legal breakthrough. "With this decision, the government must now reckon with the fact that they have a responsibility to the whole planet when it comes to allowing more coal to be dug up and burnt," Ms Higginson said. "The status quo of setting emissions reduction targets domestically and then exporting the climate crisis is now broken with this decision." The case will be returned to the Land and Environment Court to consider and MACH Energy was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. The company was contacted for comment.
