Ervin Mahrer & Partners v Strathfield Municipal Council [2002] NSWLEC 47

Ervin Mahrer & Partners v Strathfield Municipal Council [2002] NSWLEC 47

The proposed development's significant and substantial non-compliance with DCP 20 requirements for height, building footprint, and built form, lack of favourable urban design qualities, unacceptable impact on the heritage item, and adverse site isolation effects cumulatively justify refusal of development consent under s 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
appeal dismissed; development consent refused
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'urban Design' 'heritage Conservation' 'development Control Plan' 'building Height Compliance' 'site Isolation' 'masterplan Implementation']
['planning Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Application' 'urban Design' 'heritage Conservation' 'development Control Plan' 'building Height Compliance' 'site Isolation' 'masterplan Implementation']

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

Appeal Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposal satisfactorily complies with Urban Design Considerations for development within the Mixed Use Zone' 'Whether the proposal satisfactorily complies with the requirements of DCP20' 'Impact on heritage item (Niterider Theatre Restaurant)' 'Impact on adjoining isolated properties']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development's significant and substantial non-compliance with DCP 20 requirements for height, building footprint, and built form, lack of favourable urban design qualities, unacceptable impact on the heritage item, and adverse site isolation effects cumulatively justify refusal of development consent under s 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; development consent refused

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development consent is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned.' 'No order as to costs.']