Andalos Developments Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2017] NSWLEC 1255

Andalos Developments Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2017] NSWLEC 1255

The applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of clause 4.6 of the LEP as the written request did not adequately demonstrate that compliance with the height development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary, nor that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard. Adverse impacts on overshadowing, visual dominance, and landscaping meant the proposal was not consistent with the objectives of the development standard or the zone. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and development consent refused.

Parties
Applicant: Andalos Developments Pty Ltd; Respondent: Lane Cove Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Application, Building Height Standards, Zoning Objectives, SEPP 65 Compliance, Waste Management
Planning Law Environmental Law Development Application Building Height Standards Zoning Objectives SEPP 65 Compliance Waste Management

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andalos Developments Pty Ltd

Applicant

Lane Cove Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the site is suitable for the proposed development
  2. 2 Whether the development satisfies objectives of the zone (R4)
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with building height standard is justified under cl 4.6 LEP

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of clause 4.6 of the LEP as the written request did not adequately demonstrate that compliance with the height development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary, nor that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard. Adverse impacts on overshadowing, visual dominance, and landscaping meant the proposal was not consistent with the objectives of the development standard or the zone. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and development consent refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant is granted leave to rely on the Exhibit A plans subject to costs payment as agreed or assessed.
  • Development Application DA 69/2016 is refused consent.