Lippman & Associates v Waverley Council [2005] NSWLEC 591

Lippman & Associates v Waverley Council [2005] NSWLEC 591

The SEPP 1 objection was well founded because the proposed lots, although below the 232 sq m minimum, satisfied the underlying objectives concerning density, compatibility and amenity, and the subdivision would occur only after an acceptable built form was constructed. The amended proposal, supported by further survey and geotechnical information and subject to conditions, would sit comfortably in the streetscape, would not cause unacceptable amenity, heritage, visual, parking or excavation impacts, and provided sufficient certainty for development consent to be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Against Refusal of a Development Application / On Site Hearing, Amended Plans Hearing, and Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; SEPP 1 objection allowed; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Demolition, Attached Dwellings and Subdivision' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection' 'minimum Allotment Size' 'streetscape and Visual Impact' 'amenity Impacts on Adjoining Properties' 'car Parking' 'excavation and Stability Near Public Reserve' 'heritage and Aboriginal Relics']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent' 'subdivision'] ['development Application for Demolition, Attached Dwellings and Subdivision' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection' 'minimum Allotment Size' 'streetscape and Visual Impact' 'amenity Impacts on Adjoining Properties' 'car Parking' 'excavation and Stability Near Public Reserve' 'heritage and Aboriginal Relics']

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 Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Against Refusal of a Development Application / On Site Hearing, Amended Plans Hearing, and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to vary the minimum subdivision standard from 232 sq m to 228 sq m should be upheld' 'Whether the proposed two attached dwellings and subdivision were compatible with the streetscape and the amenity and character of the locality' 'Whether impacts on adjoining properties, including overlooking, view sharing, excavation and car parking, warranted refusal or could be addressed by conditions' 'Whether further survey, geotechnical and construction information provided sufficient certainty for consent']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objection was well founded because the proposed lots, although below the 232 sq m minimum, satisfied the underlying objectives concerning density, compatibility and amenity, and the subdivision would occur only after an acceptable built form was constructed. The amended proposal, supported by further survey and geotechnical information and subject to conditions, would sit comfortably in the streetscape, would not cause unacceptable amenity, heritage, visual, parking or excavation impacts, and provided sufficient certainty for development consent to be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; SEPP 1 objection allowed; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal in respect of the property known as No. 3 Bay Street, North Bondi, is upheld.' 'The objection to vary the minimum subdivision standard of 232 sq m to 228 sq m is allowed under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1.' "The development application submitted to Waverley Council and as amended for the...