Bureau SRH Pty Ltd v Waverley Council (No. 2) [2017] NSWLEC 1383

Bureau SRH Pty Ltd v Waverley Council (No. 2) [2017] NSWLEC 1383

A variation of the height of buildings development standard is not justified as the proposal is inconsistent with the objective for compatibility with the character, scale, and form of the locality; the FSR variation is justified except in relation to additional fourth floor units, as the proposal otherwise remains within the approved building envelope and maintains amenity and streetscape consistency.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment After Hearing of Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld with modifications
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'height of Buildings' 'floor Space Ratio' 'non Compliance With Development Standards' 'lep 2012' 'b4 Mixed Use Zone']
['planning Law' 'environmental Law'] ['development Application' 'height of Buildings' 'floor Space Ratio' 'non Compliance With Development Standards' 'lep 2012' 'b4 Mixed Use Zone']

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 / Final Judgment After Hearing of Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proposed development's non-compliance with the height of buildings and floor space ratio standards under Waverley Local Environment Plan 2012 justifies approval under clause 4.6 exceptions" 'Whether the proposal is consistent with the desired future character of the locality']

Ratio Decidendi

A variation of the height of buildings development standard is not justified as the proposal is inconsistent with the objective for compatibility with the character, scale, and form of the locality; the FSR variation is justified except in relation to additional fourth floor units, as the proposal otherwise remains within the approved building envelope and maintains amenity and streetscape consistency.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with modifications

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application No. 512/2016 for alterations and additions to modify an approved, but not yet constructed, mixed use development (Development Consent 419/2015) is approved, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.' 'The exhibits, other than exhibits 1 and A, are returned.']