Freshwater Village Developments Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2011] NSWLEC 1127

Freshwater Village Developments Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2011] NSWLEC 1127

The development application was refused because the proposed H1 townhouses, particularly TH.05-TH.07, were inconsistent with the desired future character of detached style housing in landscaped settings and with the landscaped open space and building bulk principles, and because the H2 development departed significantly from the desired future character and controls by failing to provide the required retail character and low-rise shop-top housing form, exceeding height and storey controls, not substantially reducing upper-floor massing, providing poor plaza connectivity and amenity, and creating unacceptable bulk. The west facing lower level units in Building B also had unacceptable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application No 2010/1446 / Final Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal' 'mixed Use Retail and Residential Development' 'desired Future Character' 'building Height and Number of Storeys' 'building Bulk and Density' 'residential Amenity' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 65']
['planning and Environment' 'development Control'] ['development Application Refusal' 'mixed Use Retail and Residential Development' 'desired Future Character' 'building Height and Number of Storeys' 'building Bulk and Density' 'residential Amenity' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 65']

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 No 2010/1446 / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development was appropriate or consistent with the desired future character of the H1 Freshwater Beach locality, particularly as to density and form of housing.' 'Whether the proposed development was appropriate or consistent with the desired future character of the H2 Harbord Village locality, particularly as to height, number of storeys, low-rise shop-top housing and retail character.' 'Whether the proposed development was consistent with relevant general principles of development control, including landscaped open space and building bulk.' 'Whether the amenity impacts on future residents, particularly west facing lower level units in Building B, were acceptable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The development application was refused because the proposed H1 townhouses, particularly TH.05-TH.07, were inconsistent with the desired future character of detached style housing in landscaped settings and with the landscaped open space and building bulk principles, and because the H2 development departed significantly from the desired future character and controls by failing to provide the required retail character and low-rise shop-top housing form, exceeding height and storey controls, not substantially reducing upper-floor massing, providing poor plaza connectivity and amenity, and creating unacceptable bulk. The west facing lower level units in Building B also had unacceptable...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application No 2010/1446 for the demolition of all existing improvements and the construction of a mixed-use retail and residential development at 5-19 Lawrence Street, 22A Albert Street and 18 Marmora Street, Freshwater is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned with the...