Connoisseur Investments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1181

Connoisseur Investments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1181

The Court upheld the appeal and granted development consent because the minor height exceedance was justified under cl 4.6: it resulted from flood-related raised floor levels, was limited to the roof slab, did not create additional floor area, did not cause unacceptable privacy or visual impacts, and remained consistent with the height standard objectives and R3 zone objectives. The Court found the proposal complied with the FSR standard after accepting the Applicant's treatment of laundries, stairs, lifts, lift wells and service risers in the gross floor area calculation. The Court was also satisfied that the landscaping, front setback design, private open space, privacy treatment,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da18/1347 / Principal Judgment; Final Orders After Addendum
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; leave granted to rely on amended plans subject to costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'r3 Medium Density Residential Zone' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'floor Space Ratio' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'landscaping and Streetscape' 'flood Planning' 'private Open Space' 'visual and Acoustic Privacy']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'r3 Medium Density Residential Zone' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'floor Space Ratio' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'landscaping and Streetscape' 'flood Planning' 'private Open Space' 'visual and Acoustic Privacy']

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 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da18/1347 / Principal Judgment; Final Orders After Addendum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted for the Applicant to rely on amended plans subject to costs thrown away.' 'Whether the proposed contravention of the 9m height of buildings development standard should be accepted under cl 4.6 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.' 'Whether the proposed development exceeded the 0.7:1 floor space ratio development standard under cl 4.4 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.' 'Whether the proposed development provided an appropriate balance between built form and landscaping, particularly in the front setback.' 'Whether the proposed development would cause unacceptable streetscape, privacy, acoustic, overshadowing, flooding or amenity impacts.' 'Whether development consent should be granted to Development Application DA18/1347.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the appeal and granted development consent because the minor height exceedance was justified under cl 4.6: it resulted from flood-related raised floor levels, was limited to the roof slab, did not create additional floor area, did not cause unacceptable privacy or visual impacts, and remained consistent with the height standard objectives and R3 zone objectives. The Court found the proposal complied with the FSR standard after accepting the Applicant's treatment of laundries, stairs, lifts, lift wells and service risers in the gross floor area calculation. The Court was also satisfied that the landscaping, front setback design, private open space, privacy treatment,...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; leave granted to rely on amended plans subject to costs thrown away.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon amended plans at Exhibits E, F, G and H subject to costs thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000.00.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to Development Application...