Liquid Design Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 1126

Liquid Design Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 1126

Consent was granted because, applying the relevant statutory instruments and development control plans flexibly on the merits, the part 5-storey height element was a reasonable alternative solution with only minor acceptable impacts, the failure to consolidate with adjoining lots was acceptable after reasonable unsuccessful consolidation efforts and did not unreasonably constrain future development, the design was compatible with the local area under cl 30A of SEPP ARH, the basement and building footprint were acceptable under SDCP20, and the site was suitable and approval was in the public interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal Against Deemed Refusal / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld and development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['boarding House Development' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'building Height Development Standard' 'development Control Plan Controls' 'lot Consolidation' 'character Compatibility' 'basement Setbacks and Deep Soil Landscaping']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['boarding House Development' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'building Height Development Standard' 'development Control Plan Controls' 'lot Consolidation' 'character Compatibility' 'basement Setbacks and Deep Soil Landscaping']

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 Development Application Appeal Against Deemed Refusal / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether potential impacts of the proposed development's non-compliance with the 4-storey height control in SDCP20 were acceptable." 'Whether non-compliance with the consolidation pattern envisaged in SDCP20 was acceptable.' 'Whether the design of the proposed development was compatible with the character of the local area under cl 30A of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.' 'Whether the building footprint, including the proposed basement car park, was acceptable having regard to SDCP20 provisions concerning setbacks and landscaping including deep soil.' 'Whether the proposed development complied with other relevant provisions of SDCP and SDCP20.' 'Whether a cl 4.6 written request to vary the height development standard in Strathfield Local Environment Plan 2012 was required.']

Ratio Decidendi

Consent was granted because, applying the relevant statutory instruments and development control plans flexibly on the merits, the part 5-storey height element was a reasonable alternative solution with only minor acceptable impacts, the failure to consolidate with adjoining lots was acceptable after reasonable unsuccessful consolidation efforts and did not unreasonably constrain future development, the design was compatible with the local area under cl 30A of SEPP ARH, the basement and building footprint were acceptable under SDCP20, and the site was suitable and approval was in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to amend its development application and to rely on amended plans.' "The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of amending the development application, as agreed or assessed, under s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979." 'The...