Fox Johnson v Randwick City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1384

Fox Johnson v Randwick City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1384

The Court held that strict compliance with the height and storey development standards was reasonable and necessary, and that the SEPP 1 objection was not well-founded, because the additional height and storey of Building B failed to provide an appropriate relationship with the Park and existing residential flat buildings, produced unacceptable bulk and massing over a significant length, and was inconsistent with the planning approach and controls in the DCP. The development also had fundamental inconsistencies with the DCP concerning the length and location of Building B and the upper level setbacks of Building A that warranted refusal and could not properly be addressed by conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application 182/2011 / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and Development Application 182/2011 is refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'building Height and Storey Development Standards' 'development Control Plan Compliance' 'residential Amenity' 'setbacks and Built Form']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'building Height and Storey Development Standards' 'development Control Plan Compliance' 'residential Amenity' 'setbacks and Built Form']

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

Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application 182/2011 / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 objection to the height and storey development standard was well-founded.' 'Whether departures from the Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan 2002 could be supported in relation to the location of the proposed building forms and setbacks to the Goodwood Street frontage.' 'Whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, particularly 5-7 Ascot Street and 8-10 Goodwood Street.' 'Whether the proposed development would create unacceptable amenity impacts on residents of the proposed units.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that strict compliance with the height and storey development standards was reasonable and necessary, and that the SEPP 1 objection was not well-founded, because the additional height and storey of Building B failed to provide an appropriate relationship with the Park and existing residential flat buildings, produced unacceptable bulk and massing over a significant length, and was inconsistent with the planning approach and controls in the DCP. The development also had fundamental inconsistencies with the DCP concerning the length and location of Building B and the upper level setbacks of Building A that warranted refusal and could not properly be addressed by conditions.

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed and Development Application 182/2011 is refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application 182/2011 for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a new part 5 and part 6 storey level mixed use development at 2-6 Goodwood Street and 5-7 Ascot Street is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibit 2.']