Faim Pty Ltd v Canada Bay [2004] NSWLEC 39

Faim Pty Ltd v Canada Bay [2004] NSWLEC 39

The appeal was dismissed because the proposal did not achieve an acceptable relationship with the Sutton building and its streetscape context, failed to continue the existing scale adequately, conflicted with Figure 7.2 of the DCP except as to the presence of a six-storey component, and was incompatible with its context. Although many internal amenity criticisms alone would not justify refusal, the ground floor covered space was an unpleasant and purposeless feature that added to the bulk of the building.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal' 'heritage Impact' 'streetscape and Urban Design' 'residential Flat Development' 'internal Amenity' 'development Control Plan Compliance']
['planning and Environment' 'development Control' 'heritage'] ['development Application Refusal' 'heritage Impact' 'streetscape and Urban Design' 'residential Flat Development' 'internal Amenity' 'development Control Plan Compliance']

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 Refusal of a Development Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed six-storey mixed-use building was compatible with the heritage significance and streetscape context of nearby heritage items including the Sutton building, the fire station and the church.' 'Whether a satisfactory relationship between the proposal and the Sutton building required a building form such as that suggested by Figure 7.2 of the Comprehensive Development Control Plan.' 'Whether the six-storey component of the proposal was appropriate.' 'Whether the internal amenity and functionality of the proposed shops, ground floor covered space and apartments were acceptable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the proposal did not achieve an acceptable relationship with the Sutton building and its streetscape context, failed to continue the existing scale adequately, conflicted with Figure 7.2 of the DCP except as to the presence of a six-storey component, and was incompatible with its context. Although many internal amenity criticisms alone would not justify refusal, the ground floor covered space was an unpleasant and purposeless feature that added to the bulk of the building.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application to erect a six-storey building containing retailing on the ground floor and 35 apartments on five upper levels on lot A DP 446095, known as 50A Lyons Road Drummoyne is determined by refusal.' 'The exhibits are returned.']