Loftex Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2013] NSWLEC 1143

Loftex Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2013] NSWLEC 1143

The Court is not presently satisfied, on the evidence, that strict compliance with the landscaped area requirement is unreasonable or unnecessary in the SEPP 1 sense, since the proposal does not meet all objectives of the control (notably, minimisation of site disturbance) and insufficient evidence exists that compliance would hinder statutory objects; further submissions are required, particularly in light of the imminent commencement of the new LEP.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (deemed Refusal of Development Application) / Interlocutory Directions/further Submissions Invited
Outcome
Directions for further submissions; no final determination
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'landscaped Area Requirement' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'transitional LEP Controls']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'landscaped Area Requirement' 'sepp 1 Objection' 'transitional LEP Controls']

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 1979 (deemed Refusal of Development Application) / Interlocutory Directions/further Submissions Invited

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether strict compliance with landscaped area requirement under cl 20(2) North Sydney LEP 2001 is unreasonable or unnecessary (SEPP 1)' 'Whether proposed development meets objectives of landscaped area control' 'Relevance and weight to be given to draft/new LEP and DCP' 'Whether grant of consent is consistent with LEP aims and zone objectives']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court is not presently satisfied, on the evidence, that strict compliance with the landscaped area requirement is unreasonable or unnecessary in the SEPP 1 sense, since the proposal does not meet all objectives of the control (notably, minimisation of site disturbance) and insufficient evidence exists that compliance would hinder statutory objects; further submissions are required, particularly in light of the imminent commencement of the new LEP.

Court Disposition

Directions for further submissions; no final determination

Orders

  • ['Parties to be consulted for directions regarding further submissions and outstanding matters before finalisation of the appeal']