ARTZ 2 Design Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1381

ARTZ 2 Design Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1381

The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio and height standards under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan, particularly regarding compatibility with the size of the land and contextual relationship with adjacent properties; therefore, the variation requested under clause 4.6 cannot be granted, and consent cannot be given.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Post Hearing, Directions Given
Outcome
Further Directions issued; consent not granted unless amended plans are filed as per findings.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'height and Floor Space Ratio Standards' 'clause 4.6 Variations' 'streetscape Compatibility']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'height and Floor Space Ratio Standards' 'clause 4.6 Variations' 'streetscape Compatibility']

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 / Post Hearing, Directions Given

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the request for variation under clause 4.6 of the LEP to height and floor space ratio standards is justified' 'Whether the height, number of storeys and floor space ratio will cause adverse streetscape and urban design impacts']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio and height standards under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan, particularly regarding compatibility with the size of the land and contextual relationship with adjacent properties; therefore, the variation requested under clause 4.6 cannot be granted, and consent cannot be given.

Court Disposition

Further Directions issued; consent not granted unless amended plans are filed as per findings.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is to advise by ecourt on or before 29 June 2015 whether it chooses to amend the application in accordance with the findings in this judgment.' 'If the applicant chooses to amend the application, the parties are to file by ecourt on or before 1 July 2015 agreed directions as to the filing of the...