Binnijig Pty Ltd v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2020] NSWLEC 1086

Binnijig Pty Ltd v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2020] NSWLEC 1086

Applicant failed to demonstrate that adequate floor to ceiling heights for habitable rooms and internal amenity in the residential units are achieved; the proposal is refused despite some compliance with ADG setback and solar access criteria.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 8.7(1) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Judgment at Hearing After Conciliation Conference Terminated
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'floor to Ceiling Heights' 'internal Amenity' 'overshadowing' 'visual Privacy' 'solar Access' 'natural Ventilation']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'floor to Ceiling Heights' 'internal Amenity' 'overshadowing' 'visual Privacy' 'solar Access' 'natural Ventilation']

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

Appeal Under S 8.7(1) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Judgment at Hearing After Conciliation Conference Terminated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contravention of the height of buildings development standard is justified' 'Whether the proposal achieves adequate floor to ceiling heights for habitable rooms' 'Whether the proposal provides adequate internal amenity' 'Whether the proposal provides sufficient solar access and ventilation' 'Whether the proposal minimises overshadowing of adjoining properties']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate that adequate floor to ceiling heights for habitable rooms and internal amenity in the residential units are achieved; the proposal is refused despite some compliance with ADG setback and solar access criteria.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused

Orders

  • ['Applicant granted leave to amend application by relying on amended proposal' 'Applicant to pay costs of Respondent thrown away as result of amendments, as agreed or assessed, pursuant to s 8.15(3) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'Appeal dismissed' 'Development Application No. 155/2018 for...