Bouchard v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 1449

Bouchard v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 1449

The written requests seeking to justify contravention of the height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards did not adequately address why compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary, nor provide sufficient environmental planning grounds. The proposed development was not consistent with the objectives of the relevant development standards or the zone and resulted in adverse impacts on the environmental amenity of neighbouring properties, thus the appeal must fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal (class 1) / Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Standards' 'height of Buildings' 'floor Space Ratio' 'contravention of Planning Controls' 'public Interest' 'amenity Impacts' 'cl 4.6 Requests' 'land Use Zoning' 'site Area Calculations']
['planning Law' 'environmental Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Standards' 'height of Buildings' 'floor Space Ratio' 'contravention of Planning Controls' 'public Interest' 'amenity Impacts' 'cl 4.6 Requests' 'land Use Zoning' 'site Area Calculations']

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

Appeal (class 1) / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the written requests justify contravention of the height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards under cl 4.6 of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012' 'Whether the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the zone' 'Whether the proposal preserves the environmental amenity of neighbouring properties']

Ratio Decidendi

The written requests seeking to justify contravention of the height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards did not adequately address why compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary, nor provide sufficient environmental planning grounds. The proposed development was not consistent with the objectives of the relevant development standards or the zone and resulted in adverse impacts on the environmental amenity of neighbouring properties, thus the appeal must fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application No. 422/2018 for an additional level to an approved but not yet constructed two storey dwelling and studio, at 6 Ashley Street, Tamarama, is refused.' 'The exhibits, other than Exhibits 1, 3, A, E and F, are returned.']