Katerinis v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1479

Katerinis v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1479

Clause 10(2) of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) is not a development standard but a pre-condition to the application of the policy; the proposal does not satisfy the FSR objectives under the CLEP 2012, and the cl 4.6 request does not demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary; as a result, there is no power to grant development consent, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: John Katerinis; Second Applicant: Peter Katerinis; Respondent: Canterbury-Bankstown Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Development Appeal / Final Merits Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; consent refused; variation request refused.
Legal Topics
Development Standards, Affordable Housing, Environmental Planning Policy, Floor Space Ratio, Class 1 Appeals, Zoning Controls
Planning and Environment Law Development Standards Affordable Housing Environmental Planning Policy Floor Space Ratio Class 1 Appeals Zoning Controls

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Katerinis

First Applicant

Peter Katerinis

Second Applicant

Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Appeal / Final Merits Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cl 10.2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) is a development standard
  2. 2 Whether proposal complies with floor space ratio standard under Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012
  3. 3 Whether request to vary FSR standard under cl 4.6 should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 10(2) of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) is not a development standard but a pre-condition to the application of the policy; the proposal does not satisfy the FSR objectives under the CLEP 2012, and the cl 4.6 request does not demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary; as a result, there is no power to grant development consent, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; consent refused; variation request refused.

Orders

  • The request to vary the floor space ratio standard, made pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012, is refused.
  • The appeal is dismissed.