Georges v Georges River Council [2021] NSWLEC 1028

Georges v Georges River Council [2021] NSWLEC 1028

Consent was refused because the proposal inadequately addressed SEPP65 design principles and DCP controls, particularly street wall height and transition to the low density residential area; represented overdevelopment shown by excessive scale, setbacks, amenity compromises and impacts on Tree 6; failed to provide safe vehicle access; left unresolved stormwater and flooding impacts dependent on works outside the site; and failed to satisfy cl 6.2 Earthworks of the LEP.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Hearing and Final Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development consent refused.
Legal Topics
['residential Flat Building' 'overdevelopment' 'sepp65 Design Quality' 'apartment Design Guide Compliance' 'building Height' 'street Wall Height and Setbacks' 'tree Protection' 'vehicle Access Safety' 'stormwater and Flooding' 'earthworks']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['residential Flat Building' 'overdevelopment' 'sepp65 Design Quality' 'apartment Design Guide Compliance' 'building Height' 'street Wall Height and Setbacks' 'tree Protection' 'vehicle Access Safety' 'stormwater and Flooding' 'earthworks']

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 a Development Application / Hearing and Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Development Application DA2018/0517 should be granted consent despite Council's refusal." 'Whether the proposed development was an overdevelopment of the site.' 'Whether the proposed building would comply with the LEP building height development standard, including required floor to ceiling and floor to floor heights.' 'Whether the development was consistent with the design principles of SEPP65 and the Apartment Design Guide and relevant DCP provisions, including street wall height, setbacks, communal open space, landscaping and amenity.' 'Whether impacts on neighbouring properties and Tree 6 on adjacent land were acceptable.' 'Whether vehicle access to the site was safe and compliant with the relevant Australian Standard.' 'Whether stormwater design adequately addressed flooding impacts.' 'Whether the Applicant had satisfactorily addressed cl 6.2 Earthworks of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.' 'Whether cl 102 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 applied to the site.']

Ratio Decidendi

Consent was refused because the proposal inadequately addressed SEPP65 design principles and DCP controls, particularly street wall height and transition to the low density residential area; represented overdevelopment shown by excessive scale, setbacks, amenity compromises and impacts on Tree 6; failed to provide safe vehicle access; left unresolved stormwater and flooding impacts dependent on works outside the site; and failed to satisfy cl 6.2 Earthworks of the LEP.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development consent refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application DA2018/0517 for demolition of existing structures and the construction of a five storey residential flat building over two level basement carparking with associated landscaping and associated site works at 2-4 Vaughan Street, Blakehurst is refused consent.' 'The...