Rahe v Inner West Council [2022] NSWLEC 1371

Rahe v Inner West Council [2022] NSWLEC 1371

The development application, as amended, is consistent with all relevant planning controls except for the FSR exceedance, which is solely attributable to a basement parking area not affecting the building’s bulk or public amenity. The applicant’s clause 4.6 request is upheld as strict compliance is unreasonable in the circumstances and the proposal satisfies the objectives of the relevant development standards and zone, warranting approval.

Parties
Applicant: Chahrazad Rahe; Respondent: Inner West Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal / Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted with conditions
Legal Topics
Development Application, Floor Space Ratio, Clause 4.6 Variation, Heritage Conservation Area
Planning Law Environmental Law Development Application Floor Space Ratio Clause 4.6 Variation Heritage Conservation Area

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chahrazad Rahe

Applicant

Inner West Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Development Appeal / Judgment and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the development application should be approved despite non-compliance with the floor space ratio under the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's clause 4.6 written request justifies contravention of the development standard
  3. 3 Whether the amended plans resolve Council's contentions and meet all relevant planning controls

Ratio Decidendi

The development application, as amended, is consistent with all relevant planning controls except for the FSR exceedance, which is solely attributable to a basement parking area not affecting the building’s bulk or public amenity. The applicant’s clause 4.6 request is upheld as strict compliance is unreasonable in the circumstances and the proposal satisfies the objectives of the relevant development standards and zone, warranting approval.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted with conditions

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld
  • Leave is granted for the Applicant to amend the Application Class 1 to rely on the amended materials included at Annexure 'A'