Greenpark Projects 2 Pty Ltd v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1003

Greenpark Projects 2 Pty Ltd v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1003

Consent could not be granted because the applicant's clause 4.6 written request did not adequately address the matters required by clause 4.6(3), particularly the objective of clause 4.1A to achieve planned residential density in certain residential zones. The request failed to assess the planned residential density for the site or the R3 zone and did not demonstrate that the objective of the development standard was met; compliance with other planning controls, absence of external impacts and good internal amenity did not justify variation of the minimum lot size standard.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Appeal Against Deemed Refusal After S 34 AA Conciliation Conference Was Terminated and Proceedings Dealt With Forthwith
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['dual Occupancy Development' 'minimum Lot Size Development Standards' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['dual Occupancy Development' 'minimum Lot Size Development Standards' 'torrens Title Subdivision' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012']

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 Application Appeal / Appeal Against Deemed Refusal After S 34 AA Conciliation Conference Was Terminated and Proceedings Dealt With Forthwith

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether consent should be granted for demolition, construction of an attached dual occupancy and Torrens Title subdivision on a site smaller than the minimum lot size required by clause 4.1A of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012.' 'Whether the proposed subdivision should be permitted where one resulting lot did not meet the minimum lot size required by clause 4.1B of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012.' "Whether the applicant's written request under clause 4.6 of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 adequately demonstrated that compliance with the development standards was unreasonable or unnecessary and that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds for contravention."]

Ratio Decidendi

Consent could not be granted because the applicant's clause 4.6 written request did not adequately address the matters required by clause 4.6(3), particularly the objective of clause 4.1A to achieve planned residential density in certain residential zones. The request failed to assess the planned residential density for the site or the R3 zone and did not demonstrate that the objective of the development standard was met; compliance with other planning controls, absence of external impacts and good internal amenity did not justify variation of the minimum lot size standard.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application No 233/2016 for demolition of existing structures, construction of an attached dual occupancy and Torrens Title subdivision of the land into two lots at No.115 Burwood Road, Belfield is refused consent.' 'The exhibits, other than exhibits A, B and 2, are returned.']