Graham & Sanders Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2021] NSWLEC 1433

Graham & Sanders Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2021] NSWLEC 1433

The amended development application was approved because the Court was satisfied that the application was properly made, the jurisdictional prerequisites were met, the Applicant's cl 4.6 request to vary the height of buildings standard was well founded, the proposal was consistent with the relevant objectives and planning controls, objector concerns and notification requirements had been properly addressed, all contentions had been resolved by amended plans, expert agreement and conditions, s 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was satisfied, and approval was in the public interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal / Application for Final Orders by Consent Following Appeal Against Refusal of S 8.2 Review of Development Application
Outcome
By consent, the appeal was upheld and the amended development application was approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal Appeal' 'consent Orders' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'commercial Development' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'objector Submissions' 'public Interest']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'heritage Conservation'] ['development Application Refusal Appeal' 'consent Orders' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'commercial Development' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'objector Submissions' 'public Interest']

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 Development Appeal / Application for Final Orders by Consent Following Appeal Against Refusal of S 8.2 Review of Development Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was lawful and appropriate to grant final orders by consent approving the amended development application.' "Whether the Applicant's written request under cl 4.6 of Camden Local Environmental Plan 2010 to vary the height of buildings development standard was well founded." 'Whether relevant statutory provisions, including s 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, SEPP 55, Camden Local Environmental Plan 2010 and applicable development control plans, had been satisfied.' 'Whether objections concerning height, bulk, scale, heritage impacts, demolition, amenity impacts and notification had been properly taken into account.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended development application was approved because the Court was satisfied that the application was properly made, the jurisdictional prerequisites were met, the Applicant's cl 4.6 request to vary the height of buildings standard was well founded, the proposal was consistent with the relevant objectives and planning controls, objector concerns and notification requirements had been properly addressed, all contentions had been resolved by amended plans, expert agreement and conditions, s 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was satisfied, and approval was in the public interest.

Court Disposition

By consent, the appeal was upheld and the amended development application was approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to amend its development application to rely on the amended plans and documents at condition 1 of Annexure A.' "Pursuant to s 8.15 of the EP&A Act the Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs in the amount of $42,000 within 14 days of these orders." "The Applicant's written request...