Brigham v Canterbury–Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1406

Brigham v Canterbury–Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1406

The applicant's cl 4.6 written request did not satisfactorily demonstrate that compliance with the FSR development standard in cl 4.4 of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 was unreasonable or unnecessary. The Court accepted the Council planner's evidence that the proposal did not achieve objectives (a), (b) and (c) of cl 4.4 because the lateral extension to the south-western boundary would add visible bulk, adversely affect the adjoining residents' amenity and outlook, and fail to minimise adverse environmental impacts on adjoining properties and the public domain. On this small site, strict compliance with the numerical FSR control was necessary and reasonable to achieve the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application Under S 8.6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Hearing Following Termination of S 34 AA Conciliation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Application for Alterations and Additions' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'residential Amenity' 'bulk and Scale' 'desired Future Character']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land and Environment' 'development Control'] ['development Application for Alterations and Additions' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'residential Amenity' 'bulk and Scale' 'desired Future Character']

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 Refusal of Development Application Under S 8.6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Hearing Following Termination of S 34 AA Conciliation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's cl 4.6 written request adequately demonstrated that compliance with the floor space ratio development standard in cl 4.4 of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 was unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case." 'Whether there were sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the floor space ratio development standard.' 'Whether the proposed development was consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the R3 zone objectives so as to be in the public interest.' 'Whether the lateral side extension and additional floor space would create unacceptable bulk and adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the public domain.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's cl 4.6 written request did not satisfactorily demonstrate that compliance with the FSR development standard in cl 4.4 of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 was unreasonable or unnecessary. The Court accepted the Council planner's evidence that the proposal did not achieve objectives (a), (b) and (c) of cl 4.4 because the lateral extension to the south-western boundary would add visible bulk, adversely affect the adjoining residents' amenity and outlook, and fail to minimise adverse environmental impacts on adjoining properties and the public domain. On this small site, strict compliance with the numerical FSR control was necessary and reasonable to achieve the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed and the exhibits returned.']