Mendo v Liverpool City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1655

Mendo v Liverpool City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1655

The proposed development was unacceptable because the southern boundary was properly treated as the rear boundary for applying the setback controls, the development did not comply with the setback, private open space and overshadowing controls in Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008, and it did not provide a reasonable alternative solution achieving the objectives of those controls. Its bulk and scale were therefore unacceptable, the development was not in the public interest, and the development application should be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Final Determination After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'strata Subdivision' 'development Control Plan Setbacks' 'private Open Space' 'overshadowing' 'bulk and Scale']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'strata Subdivision' 'development Control Plan Setbacks' 'private Open Space' 'overshadowing' 'bulk and Scale']

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

Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Final Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed southern and eastern setbacks of the development were acceptable under Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008.' 'Whether the proposed amount of private open space within the development was acceptable.' 'Whether the potential overshadowing impacts of the proposed development on neighbouring properties were acceptable.' 'Whether the proposed development provided a reasonable alternative solution achieving the objectives of the relevant development control plan controls.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development was unacceptable because the southern boundary was properly treated as the rear boundary for applying the setback controls, the development did not comply with the setback, private open space and overshadowing controls in Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008, and it did not provide a reasonable alternative solution achieving the objectives of those controls. Its bulk and scale were therefore unacceptable, the development was not in the public interest, and the development application should be refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The Applicant's development application DA-52/2019 seeking consent for construction of a multi dwelling housing development consisting of three dwellings and associated strata subdivision is determined by way of refusal." 'The exhibits are returned, with the exception of Exhibits A, C...