Golden Max Pty Limited v Hurstville City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1234

Golden Max Pty Limited v Hurstville City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1234

The applicant failed to adequately justify the contravention of the minimum lot size development standard for multi dwelling housing under clause 4.1A(3) of the Hurstville LEP 2012. The written request did not demonstrate that compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, nor did it provide sufficient site-specific environmental planning grounds. The proposed development was inconsistent with the planned density envisaged under the LEP and zone objectives; therefore, a clause 4.6 variation was not appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Final Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'density Development Standard' 'strata Subdivision' 'clause 4.6 Variation']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Application' 'density Development Standard' 'strata Subdivision' 'clause 4.6 Variation']

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 / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether compliance with minimum lot size development standard for multi dwelling housing under clause 4.1A(3) of Hurstville LEP 2012 is unreasonable or unnecessary' 'Whether sufficient environmental planning grounds exist to justify contravening the standard' 'Whether the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives and the objectives of the development standard' 'Whether clause 4.6 variation is adequately justified']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to adequately justify the contravention of the minimum lot size development standard for multi dwelling housing under clause 4.1A(3) of the Hurstville LEP 2012. The written request did not demonstrate that compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, nor did it provide sufficient site-specific environmental planning grounds. The proposed development was inconsistent with the planned density envisaged under the LEP and zone objectives; therefore, a clause 4.6 variation was not appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application No 2014/0140 for demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a multi dwelling housing development containing three dwellings and strata subdivision at No 51 Johnstone Street, Peakhurst is refused consent.' 'The exhibits, other than exhibits A, B,...