Blanc Black Projects Pty Limited v Willoughby City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1176

Blanc Black Projects Pty Limited v Willoughby City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1176

The modification application was approved because, on a qualitative and quantitative comparison, the modified development was substantially the same as the originally approved development. The additional floor space, increased FSR, and additional height were minor in their visual and environmental effects, did not materially alter the approved building's bulk and scale, and caused no demonstrated adverse traffic, amenity or streetscape impacts. The development was not an overdevelopment of the site, was not inconsistent with the relevant zone, height or FSR objectives, and would not create an unacceptable precedent given the site's particular characteristics. The Court also declined to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Modification Application Under S 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Determination After Hearing
Outcome
Modification application approved.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'substantially the Same Development' 'floor Space Ratio' 'building Height' 'bulk and Scale' 'overdevelopment' 'precedent and Public Interest' 'national Construction Code Compliance' 'controlled Activity Approval']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'substantially the Same Development' 'floor Space Ratio' 'building Height' 'bulk and Scale' 'overdevelopment' 'precedent and Public Interest' 'national Construction Code Compliance' 'controlled Activity Approval']

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 Modification Application Under S 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.' 'Whether the proposed floor space ratio exceedance is acceptable.' 'Whether the proposed height exceedance is acceptable.' 'Whether the bulk and scale of the modified development is acceptable.' 'Whether the modified development constitutes overdevelopment of the site.' 'Whether approval would establish an undesirable precedent contrary to the public interest.' 'Whether Condition 102 should be varied to exclude part of Section J of NCC 2022 relating to facilities for electric vehicle charging equipment.' 'Whether a condition should require compliance with the Controlled Activity Approval.']

Ratio Decidendi

The modification application was approved because, on a qualitative and quantitative comparison, the modified development was substantially the same as the originally approved development. The additional floor space, increased FSR, and additional height were minor in their visual and environmental effects, did not materially alter the approved building's bulk and scale, and caused no demonstrated adverse traffic, amenity or streetscape impacts. The development was not an overdevelopment of the site, was not inconsistent with the relevant zone, height or FSR objectives, and would not create an unacceptable precedent given the site's particular characteristics. The Court also declined to...

Court Disposition

Modification application approved.

Orders

  • ['The modification application is approved.' 'Development Consent No. DA-2021/90 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.' 'Development Consent No. DA-2021/90 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.' 'All exhibits are returned, except for Exhibits A, B and H.']