Rickard Road Developments Pty Limited v City of Ryde; Mansooreh Rahimishahmirzadi & Anor v City of Ryde [2014] NSWLEC 1104

Rickard Road Developments Pty Limited v City of Ryde; Mansooreh Rahimishahmirzadi & Anor v City of Ryde [2014] NSWLEC 1104

The appeals were dismissed because each development application had to be acceptable on its own merits, and the proposed side setbacks and zero setbacks did not achieve adequate building separation, acceptable scale, landscaping, visual bulk outcomes or the design quality principles required by SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code. The zero setbacks along the common boundary were only acceptable if the adjoining development proceeded in the proposed form, which was uncertain.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeals / Appeals Against Refusal and Deemed Refusal of Development Applications Heard Concurrently
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed and both development applications refused.
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'residential Flat Buildings' 'sepp 65 Design Quality' 'residential Flat Design Code Building Separation' 'side Setbacks' 'amalgamation of Allotments' 'visual Bulk and Scale']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Applications' 'residential Flat Buildings' 'sepp 65 Design Quality' 'residential Flat Design Code Building Separation' 'side Setbacks' 'amalgamation of Allotments' 'visual Bulk and Scale']

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 Development Appeals / Appeals Against Refusal and Deemed Refusal of Development Applications Heard Concurrently

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed residential flat developments achieved good design for the purposes of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.' 'Whether the side setbacks and zero setback along the common boundary provided adequate building separation under the Residential Flat Design Code.' 'Whether each separate development application was acceptable in its own right despite reliance on coordinated development of adjoining land.' 'Whether a single development application for an amalgamated site was required or warranted refusal if not provided.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because each development application had to be acceptable on its own merits, and the proposed side setbacks and zero setbacks did not achieve adequate building separation, acceptable scale, landscaping, visual bulk outcomes or the design quality principles required by SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code. The zero setbacks along the common boundary were only acceptable if the adjoining development proceeded in the proposed form, which was uncertain.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed and both development applications refused.

Orders

  • ['Appeal No 10722 of 2013: The appeal is dismissed.' 'Appeal No 10722 of 2013: The development application LDA2013/0057 for a residential flat building at 7-9 Smith Street, Ryde, is refused.' 'Appeal No 10722 of 2013: The exhibits, except Exhibit 1, may be returned.' 'Appeal No 10747 of 2013: The appeal is...