Mandile v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1471

Mandile v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1471

The cl 4.6 variation request failed to provide sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of cl 6.14(3), did not adequately address consistency with the objectives of the landscaped area standard, and did not address the E3 zone objectives. Because the request was inadequate, the Court had no power to grant development consent for the non-compliant proposal, so the variation request and appeal had to be dismissed and the development application refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Hearing Following Termination of Mandatory Conciliation Under S 34 Aa(2)(b) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
The cl 4.6 variation request was dismissed, the appeal was dismissed, and Development Application No. 17/0346 for construction of an inclinator was refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Inclinator' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'landscaped Area Development Standard' 'adequacy of Supporting Information' 'tree and Environmental Impacts' 'amenity Impacts']
['environmental Planning and Development' 'land and Environment'] ['development Application for Inclinator' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'landscaped Area Development Standard' 'adequacy of Supporting Information' 'tree and Environmental Impacts' 'amenity Impacts']

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 / Hearing Following Termination of Mandatory Conciliation Under S 34 Aa(2)(b) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the written cl 4.6 variation request adequately justified contravention of the minimum landscaped area development standard in cl 6.14(3) of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.' 'Whether the proposed development would be in the public interest because it was consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the E3 Environmental Management zone.' 'Whether the information provided by the applicant was adequate to assess environmental, tree, habitat and amenity impacts of the proposed inclinator.']

Ratio Decidendi

The cl 4.6 variation request failed to provide sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of cl 6.14(3), did not adequately address consistency with the objectives of the landscaped area standard, and did not address the E3 zone objectives. Because the request was inadequate, the Court had no power to grant development consent for the non-compliant proposal, so the variation request and appeal had to be dismissed and the development application refused.

Court Disposition

The cl 4.6 variation request was dismissed, the appeal was dismissed, and Development Application No. 17/0346 for construction of an inclinator was refused.

Orders

  • ['The cl 4.6 variation request is dismissed;' 'The appeal is dismissed;' 'Development Application No. 17/0346 for construction of an inclinator is determined by refusal;' 'The Exhibits may be returned.']