Beresford Property Development Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay [2015] NSWLEC 1118

Beresford Property Development Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay [2015] NSWLEC 1118

The amended proposal merited consent because the Court was satisfied, on the expert evidence and after considering objections, submissions and a view, that it reasonably complied with the AHSEPP, was compatible with the local character, achieved acceptable amenity, parking, traffic and pedestrian safety outcomes, and that the 1.14m height exceedance was acceptable under the applicable SEPP approach and supported by the cl 4.6 written request.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Consent Orders After Amended Plans Were Considered
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions by consent orders.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'boarding House' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'character of Local Area' 'building Height Variation' 'bulk and Scale' 'landscaped Area' 'solar Access and Amenity' 'privacy' 'traffic and Parking']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land and Environment Court Appeals'] ['development Application' 'boarding House' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'character of Local Area' 'building Height Variation' 'bulk and Scale' 'landscaped Area' 'solar Access and Amenity' 'privacy' 'traffic and Parking']

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 Against Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Consent Orders After Amended Plans Were Considered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended boarding house development was compatible with the character of the local area.' 'Whether the proposed height exceedance of 1.14m was acceptable having regard to the AHSEPP, the Canada Bay LEP 2013 and the cl 4.6 written request.' 'Whether the amended proposal reasonably complied with AHSEPP provisions, including parking, landscape area, solar access, private open space and accommodation size.' 'Whether objections concerning privacy, traffic, parking, pedestrian safety and amenity warranted refusal of consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended proposal merited consent because the Court was satisfied, on the expert evidence and after considering objections, submissions and a view, that it reasonably complied with the AHSEPP, was compatible with the local character, achieved acceptable amenity, parking, traffic and pedestrian safety outcomes, and that the 1.14m height exceedance was acceptable under the applicable SEPP approach and supported by the cl 4.6 written request.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions by consent orders.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition DAGCA01 of annexure "A" hereto.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and...