Fabcot Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 358

Fabcot Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 358

The proposal was permissible with consent, reasonably complied with current controls apart from an FSR non-compliance for which the SEPP 1 objection was well founded, and the expert traffic and acoustic evidence together with agreed conditions adequately addressed the principal amenity concerns. Resident concerns about property values and notification did not justify refusal because no valuation evidence was provided and notification appeared reasonable. The relevant s 79(c) matters were addressed, so consent orders granting development consent were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Council's Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Consent Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted; SEPP 1 objection allowed.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'shopping Centre Alterations' 'traffic Impacts' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'resident Objections' 'development Consent']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'shopping Centre Alterations' 'traffic Impacts' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'resident Objections' 'development Consent']

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 Against Council's Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Consent Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development consent should be granted for extensions and refurbishment of the existing Parkway Plaza shopping centre.' 'Whether the SEPP 1 objection to non-compliance with the FSR development standard in cl 15 of the LEP was well founded.' 'Whether traffic, truck movement, loading dock relocation, noise, amenity, property value and notification concerns warranted refusal or further restriction of the proposal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal was permissible with consent, reasonably complied with current controls apart from an FSR non-compliance for which the SEPP 1 objection was well founded, and the expert traffic and acoustic evidence together with agreed conditions adequately addressed the principal amenity concerns. Resident concerns about property values and notification did not justify refusal because no valuation evidence was provided and notification appeared reasonable. The relevant s 79(c) matters were addressed, so consent orders granting development consent were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted; SEPP 1 objection allowed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be upheld.' 'Development consent be granted for the refurbishment of the existing Parkway Plaza Shopping Centre, including partial demolition, excavation and reinstatement to basement carparking, refurbishment of entire centre, fit-out of supermarket and liquor store, and preparation of specialty shops...