Geeves v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1601

Geeves v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1601

The Court dismissed the appeal because the plans before the Court contained boarding rooms exceeding the 25 square metre maximum in cl 30(1)(b) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. That standard was a precondition to consent and no valid variation or amended plans were before the Court, so the Court had no power to grant development consent. The Court also found that directions to amend were not warranted because, even if the room size issue were corrected, the development was inconsistent with the current and desired future character of the locality and would warrant refusal on merit grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da2017/00583 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and development application refused.
Legal Topics
['boarding House Development Application' 'floor Space Ratio' 'development Standards' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'maximum Boarding Room Size' 'character of Local Area' 'amber Light Approach']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['boarding House Development Application' 'floor Space Ratio' 'development Standards' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'maximum Boarding Room Size' 'character of Local Area' 'amber Light Approach']

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 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da2017/00583 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development exceeded the applicable floor space ratio standard and therefore required a cl 4.6 variation request.' 'Whether boarding rooms exceeding 25 square metres contravened cl 30(1)(b) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.' 'Whether cl 30(1)(b) was a precondition to the grant of development consent such that the Court had no power to consent to the application.' 'Whether a condition of consent or directions for amended plans could cure the maximum room size non-compliance.' 'Whether the development was compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal because the plans before the Court contained boarding rooms exceeding the 25 square metre maximum in cl 30(1)(b) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. That standard was a precondition to consent and no valid variation or amended plans were before the Court, so the Court had no power to grant development consent. The Court also found that directions to amend were not warranted because, even if the room size issue were corrected, the development was inconsistent with the current and desired future character of the locality and would warrant refusal on merit grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "Development application DA2017/00583 for partial demolition of the existing building and construction of a boarding house containing 18 rooms, including a manager's room and associated facilities at 96-98 May Street St Peters is refused." 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of...