Crossland v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1626

Crossland v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1626

The amended development application and supporting documents, including a sufficient cl 4.6 request, demonstrate environmental planning grounds justifying the FSR exceedance; the development causes no significant adverse impacts and is consistent with the objectives of the zone and planning controls. Therefore, the FSR variation is appropriate and consent should be granted.

Parties
Applicant: Belinda Crossland; Respondent: Inner West Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Judgment Following Conciliation Conference
Outcome
Appeal upheld, development consent granted with conditions
Legal Topics
Development Application, Floor Space Ratio Variation, Local Environmental Plan, Conciliation Conference, Appeal Against Deemed Refusal
Environmental Law Planning Law Development Application Floor Space Ratio Variation Local Environmental Plan Conciliation Conference Appeal Against Deemed Refusal

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Belinda Crossland

Applicant

Inner West Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Judgment Following Conciliation Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the development application
  2. 2 Whether the variation of the floor space ratio (FSR) development standard under cl 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 should be upheld
  3. 3 Whether development consent should be granted notwithstanding the exceedance of the FSR

Ratio Decidendi

The amended development application and supporting documents, including a sufficient cl 4.6 request, demonstrate environmental planning grounds justifying the FSR exceedance; the development causes no significant adverse impacts and is consistent with the objectives of the zone and planning controls. Therefore, the FSR variation is appropriate and consent should be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld, development consent granted with conditions

Orders

  • Leave to amend the development application and rely on amended plans listed in condition 1 of Annexure A
  • Applicant's written request under clause 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 upheld