Jubilee Properties v Warringah Council [2015] NSWLEC 1042

Jubilee Properties v Warringah Council [2015] NSWLEC 1042

The Court was not satisfied that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard for building height under clause 4.6, and found the proposal inconsistent with objectives concerning minimisation of visual impact, disruption of views, and solar access. The written request did not justify contravention and consent could not be granted.

Parties
Applicant: Jubilee Properties; 1st Respondent: Warringah Council; 2nd Respondent: Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Application, Building Height Standard, Clause 4.6 Variation, Public Interest, Design Quality, Strategic Planning Policy, Voluntary Planning Agreement
Planning and Environment Development Application Building Height Standard Clause 4.6 Variation Public Interest Design Quality Strategic Planning Policy Voluntary Planning Agreement

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jubilee Properties

Applicant

Warringah Council

1st Respondent

Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed development complies with the development standard for building height
  2. 2 Whether variation to the standard is justified under clause 4.6 of the LEP
  3. 3 Appropriate weight to be given to Masterplan and VPA

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard for building height under clause 4.6, and found the proposal inconsistent with objectives concerning minimisation of visual impact, disruption of views, and solar access. The written request did not justify contravention and consent could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed
  • Development Application No 2013/1168 for demolition works and construction of a mixed use retail/commercial and residential development at Nos 697-701 Pittwater Road, Dee Why is refused consent