Al Maha Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2017] NSWLEC 1083

Al Maha Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2017] NSWLEC 1083

The Clause 4.6 variation requests for exceeding floor space ratio and height do not satisfy the requirements: the objectives of the standards, especially minimising amenity impacts on adjoining properties, are not achieved; compliance is not demonstrated to be unreasonable or unnecessary; and there are not sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. Consequently, the development application must be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal (class 1) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused; costs order against applicant.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'clause 4.6 Variations' 'floor Space Ratio' 'building Height' 'solar Access' 'amenity Impacts' 'public Interest' 'strategic Planning']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Consent' 'clause 4.6 Variations' 'floor Space Ratio' 'building Height' 'solar Access' 'amenity Impacts' 'public Interest' 'strategic Planning']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Development Appeal (class 1) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Appropriate weight to be given to the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy in assessment of the development application' 'Whether requests for additional height and floor space are justified and worthy of support under Clause 4.6' 'Acceptability of impacts of the proposed development, particularly amenity and solar access']

Ratio Decidendi

The Clause 4.6 variation requests for exceeding floor space ratio and height do not satisfy the requirements: the objectives of the standards, especially minimising amenity impacts on adjoining properties, are not achieved; compliance is not demonstrated to be unreasonable or unnecessary; and there are not sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. Consequently, the development application must be refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused; costs order against applicant.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed' 'Development application DA 2015/020 for the construction of additional levels of residential accommodation to an approved mixed use development at 17-35 Parramatta Road and 5 Powell Street, Homebush is refused' 'The applicant is to pay the respondent costs thrown away as a result of...