City Projects and Developments Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1129

City Projects and Developments Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1129

The amended application, together with proposed conditions, adequately addressed the council's contentions. Amendment No 4 to the DCP, including the 315 square metres per dwelling residential density control, did not apply because the development application was lodged before the amendment commenced and the savings provision confined the amendment to applications lodged on or after 2 April 2014. The proposal complied with the LEP and the relevant DCP controls, was below the maximum FSR, provided landscaping exceeding the DCP requirement, and was a form of development envisaged by the planning controls. Development consent could therefore be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'streetscape' 'driveway and Basement Car Parking' 'tree Retention' 'development Control Plan Savings and Transitional Provisions' 'objector Submissions']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'streetscape' 'driveway and Basement Car Parking' 'tree Retention' 'development Control Plan Savings and Transitional Provisions' 'objector Submissions']

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 Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the amended development application adequately resolved the council's contentions concerning streetscape, driveway, tree retention and basement car parking." 'Whether matters raised by objectors, particularly reliance on a residential density control introduced by Amendment No 4 to Hurstville Development Control Plan 1, warranted refusal.' 'Whether development consent should be granted for the proposed multi dwelling housing development.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended application, together with proposed conditions, adequately addressed the council's contentions. Amendment No 4 to the DCP, including the 315 square metres per dwelling residential density control, did not apply because the development application was lodged before the amendment commenced and the savings provision confined the amendment to applications lodged on or after 2 April 2014. The proposal complied with the LEP and the relevant DCP controls, was below the maximum FSR, provided landscaping exceeding the DCP requirement, and was a form of development envisaged by the planning controls. Development consent could therefore be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'The development application (DA2014/0104) for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a multi dwelling housing development with basement carparking at 1 Rostrov Street and 528 Forest Road, Penshurst, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".' 'The exhibits,...