Landmark Group Australia Pty Limited v Holroyd City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1564

Landmark Group Australia Pty Limited v Holroyd City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1564

Refusal of applications for Buildings 1, 5 and 6 due to fundamental non-compliance with planning controls regarding setbacks, building separation, balcony space, and solar access; approval of Building 2 subject to amendments and conditions as temporary access arrangements are acceptable and setbacks are justified given adjacent approved development.

Parties
Applicant: Landmark Group Australia Pty Limited; Respondent: Holroyd City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Development Application Refusals / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Appeal in relation to Buildings 1, 5 and 6 dismissed; appeal regarding Building 2 upheld.
Legal Topics
Development Application Appeals, Building Setbacks, Building Separation, Solar Access, Balcony Space, Communal Open Space, Temporary Access, Internal Amenity
Planning and Environment Development Application Appeals Building Setbacks Building Separation Solar Access Balcony Space Communal Open Space Temporary Access +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Landmark Group Australia Pty Limited

Applicant

Holroyd City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Against Development Application Refusals / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed developments comply with relevant planning controls regarding setbacks, building separation, balcony space, solar access, communal open space, and temporary access

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal of applications for Buildings 1, 5 and 6 due to fundamental non-compliance with planning controls regarding setbacks, building separation, balcony space, and solar access; approval of Building 2 subject to amendments and conditions as temporary access arrangements are acceptable and setbacks are justified given adjacent approved development.

Court Disposition

Appeal in relation to Buildings 1, 5 and 6 dismissed; appeal regarding Building 2 upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal 10616 of 2015 (Building 1) dismissed; DA 2015/202 refused.
  • Appeal 10617 of 2015 (Buildings 5 and 6) dismissed; DA 2015/63 refused.