Jacobs v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 1232

Jacobs v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 1232

The written request failed to adequately demonstrate sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the floor space ratio development standard under cl 4.6 of the LEP, as required to enliven the Court's power to approve the development. Arguments advanced amounted largely to private benefit and absence of adverse effects, which are insufficient given the extent of non-compliance. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed and development refusal upheld.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'secondary Dwelling' 'affordable Rental Accommodation' 'floor Space Ratio' 'clause 4.6' 'environmental Planning Grounds']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Application' 'secondary Dwelling' 'affordable Rental Accommodation' 'floor Space Ratio' 'clause 4.6' 'environmental Planning Grounds']

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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sufficient environmental planning grounds exist to justify contravention of the floor space ratio development standard under cl 4.6 of the LEP' 'Whether the proposed secondary dwelling is compatible with the zone objectives and environmental planning controls' 'Whether provision of additional affordable rental housing provides sufficient ground to override the FSR control']

Ratio Decidendi

The written request failed to adequately demonstrate sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the floor space ratio development standard under cl 4.6 of the LEP, as required to enliven the Court's power to approve the development. Arguments advanced amounted largely to private benefit and absence of adverse effects, which are insufficient given the extent of non-compliance. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed and development refusal upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application No. DA 474/2017 for a secondary dwelling at 42 Bennett Street Bondi is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibits 7, A and G.']