St Hilliers Holding Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2024] NSWLEC 1354

St Hilliers Holding Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2024] NSWLEC 1354

The Court was satisfied, based on the evidence and agreement between the parties, that the cl 4.6 written request justified the height variation, that the amended development application addressed all jurisdictional requirements, and that consent should be granted subject to conditions as it was consistent with zone objectives, the public interest, and relevant planning instruments.

Parties
First Applicant: St Hilliers Holding Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: JH Capital Auburn Pty Ltd; Respondent: Cumberland Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Final Determination Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld, development consent granted subject to conditions, applicant to pay agreed costs to respondent.
Legal Topics
Development Application, Consent Authority, Height Standard Variation, Local Environmental Plan, Co Living Housing, Costs Order
Planning and Environment Development Application Consent Authority Height Standard Variation Local Environmental Plan Co Living Housing Costs Order

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St Hilliers Holding Pty Ltd

First Applicant

JH Capital Auburn Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Cumberland Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Development Application Appeal / Final Determination Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the variation to the height of buildings development standard under cl 4.3 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 should be granted pursuant to cl 4.6
  2. 2 Whether the amended development application DA 2023/0588 meets jurisdictional requirements under the relevant state planning instruments and local plans
  3. 3 Whether granting development consent is consistent with zone objectives and in the public interest

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied, based on the evidence and agreement between the parties, that the cl 4.6 written request justified the height variation, that the amended development application addressed all jurisdictional requirements, and that consent should be granted subject to conditions as it was consistent with zone objectives, the public interest, and relevant planning instruments.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld, development consent granted subject to conditions, applicant to pay agreed costs to respondent.

Orders

  • The cl 4.6 written request seeking a height variation is upheld.
  • The appeal is upheld.