Popal v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1137

Popal v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1137

The proposed development is prohibited because the rear dwellings comprise two storeys, contrary to clause 48 of LEP1988 which only permits two storeys where the dwelling adjoins an existing public road. Design deficiencies in terms of internal amenity and configuration of common open space also warrant refusal, and the necessary amendments to render the proposal compliant are neither sufficiently precise nor minor enough to be addressed through conditions.

Parties
Applicant: Abdullah Popal; Respondent: Blacktown City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Final Judgment/appeal Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Application, Multi Dwelling Housing, Zoning Permissibility, Design and Amenity, Merit Review
Environmental Law Planning Law Local Government Development Application Multi Dwelling Housing Zoning Permissibility Design and Amenity Merit Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdullah Popal

Applicant

Blacktown City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Final Judgment/appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposal is permissible under the applicable planning controls, particularly the number of storeys permitted for dwellings at the rear of the site under LEP1988 clause 48
  2. 2 Whether the design and configuration of the development is consistent with existing and desired future character and zoning objectives
  3. 3 Adequacy of internal amenity and common open space

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development is prohibited because the rear dwellings comprise two storeys, contrary to clause 48 of LEP1988 which only permits two storeys where the dwelling adjoins an existing public road. Design deficiencies in terms of internal amenity and configuration of common open space also warrant refusal, and the necessary amendments to render the proposal compliant are neither sufficiently precise nor minor enough to be addressed through conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans subject to payment of the council's cost thrown away pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
  • The appeal is dismissed.