Kogarah Investments No. 1 Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2020] NSWLEC 1214

Kogarah Investments No. 1 Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2020] NSWLEC 1214

The Court was satisfied that the applicant's written request adequately addressed the requirements of cl 4.6(3), and that the justification for exceedance of the height standard (related to access and lack of habitable space above the threshold) constitutes sufficient environmental planning grounds. The development is consistent with the objectives of the standard and zone and is in the public interest. The heritage impacts are acceptable due to comprehensive conservation commitments.

Parties
Applicant: Kogarah Investments No. 1 Pty Ltd; Respondent: Georges River Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application (class 1) / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference
Outcome
Development application allowed subject to conditions. Approval granted for the variation under cl 4.6. Costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Development Application, Heritage Conservation, Variation of Development Standards, Height of Buildings, Public Interest Test
Planning Law Local Government Law Heritage Law Development Application Heritage Conservation Variation of Development Standards Height of Buildings Public Interest Test

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kogarah Investments No. 1 Pty Ltd

Applicant

Georges River Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application (class 1) / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed development justifies variation of the height of buildings development standard under cl 4.6 of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012
  2. 2 Whether the development is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the zone
  3. 3 Whether the proposal has an acceptable impact on heritage significance

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the applicant's written request adequately addressed the requirements of cl 4.6(3), and that the justification for exceedance of the height standard (related to access and lack of habitable space above the threshold) constitutes sufficient environmental planning grounds. The development is consistent with the objectives of the standard and zone and is in the public interest. The heritage impacts are acceptable due to comprehensive conservation commitments.

Court Disposition

Development application allowed subject to conditions. Approval granted for the variation under cl 4.6. Costs ordered.

Orders

  • Leave is granted for the Applicant to amend the application to rely on the amended and additional plans, drawings and materials listed in Section A, Condition 1 of the Conditions of Consent at Annexure A.
  • The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5000 on or before 5 June 2020.