Wong v City of Canada Bay Council [2019] NSWLEC 1018

Wong v City of Canada Bay Council [2019] NSWLEC 1018

The appeal is upheld and consent is granted as the amended design addresses impacts and the statutory prerequisites for variation under CBLEP 2013 cl 4.6 are met; the decision aligns with zone objectives and is in the public interest.

Parties
Applicant: Jeffrey Wong; Respondent: City of Canada Bay Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Conciliation Conference and Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved with conditions
Legal Topics
Development Application, Height Standard Variation, Streetscape and View Loss, Zone Compliance
Planning and Environment Development Application Height Standard Variation Streetscape and View Loss Zone Compliance

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Wong

Applicant

City of Canada Bay Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Conciliation Conference and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Development Application DA2018/0011 should be approved given height exceedance and zone objectives
  2. 2 Whether variation to CBLEP 2013 cl 4.3 height standard is reasonable under cl 4.6
  3. 3 Consistency with SEPP 2015 and Sydney Regional Environment Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is upheld and consent is granted as the amended design addresses impacts and the statutory prerequisites for variation under CBLEP 2013 cl 4.6 are met; the decision aligns with zone objectives and is in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved with conditions

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans as set out in Annexure A and documentation referred to in condition 1 of Annexure A.
  • The Appeal is upheld.