Equity Group Investments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Counncil [2004] NSWLEC 339

Equity Group Investments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Counncil [2004] NSWLEC 339

The cumulative SEPP 5 development threshold in Avalon Parade had not been reached because the proposal was located between existing approved SEPP 5 developments and differed in style and design. The proposal would not unacceptably sterilise or constrain 89 Avalon Parade, and privacy and amenity concerns could be addressed by screening and design changes. Subject to relocating the driveway, improving landscaping, adding a pitched roof and widening the central corridor, the development was acceptable under cl 25(a) of SEPP 5 and in the streetscape.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal Under S 97 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a SEPP 5 Development Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld subject to design changes and further procedural steps for revised plans and orders.
Legal Topics
['sepp 5 Development' 'cumulative Impact of Developments' 'streetscape' 'neighbour Amenity' 'development Potential of Neighbouring Land' 'design and Landscaping']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'development Control' 'land and Environment'] ['sepp 5 Development' 'cumulative Impact of Developments' 'streetscape' 'neighbour Amenity' 'development Potential of Neighbouring Land' 'design and Landscaping']

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

Development Application Appeal Under S 97 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a SEPP 5 Development Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether cumulative approvals for SEPP 5 developments in Avalon Parade made the proposed development unacceptable by aggregation.' 'Whether approval would unacceptably affect the development potential or amenity of 89 Avalon Parade.' 'Whether the proposed design, driveway location, setbacks, bulk, roof form and landscaping satisfied the relevant SEPP 5 design considerations and streetscape requirements.']

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative SEPP 5 development threshold in Avalon Parade had not been reached because the proposal was located between existing approved SEPP 5 developments and differed in style and design. The proposal would not unacceptably sterilise or constrain 89 Avalon Parade, and privacy and amenity concerns could be addressed by screening and design changes. Subject to relocating the driveway, improving landscaping, adding a pitched roof and widening the central corridor, the development was acceptable under cl 25(a) of SEPP 5 and in the streetscape.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld subject to design changes and further procedural steps for revised plans and orders.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is to prepare revised plans reflecting the required changes.' 'The revised plans are to be submitted to the council so that its expert witness can advise on them.' 'The matter is to be adjourned for a sufficient period, with a short supplementary hearing if any matters remain in contention.']