M & E Developments Pty Ltd v Burwood Council [2006] NSWLEC 240

M & E Developments Pty Ltd v Burwood Council [2006] NSWLEC 240

The appeal was upheld because the proposed development, as amended and subject to revised conditions, adequately addressed planning impacts, RailCorp concerns and operational matters; 14A Grosvenor Street would not be sterilised; and the inconsistency between the development control plans did not provide a basis for refusal because Development Control Plan 18 was the later and dominant plan consistent with the Burwood Planning Scheme Ordinance 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a S 82 a Review of Refusal of Development Application 229 of 2004 / Ex Tempore Judgment on Proposed Consent Orders and Directions
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application 229 of 2004 to be granted development consent subject to revised plans and conditions to be settled.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'development Consent' 'development Control Plans' 'residential Flat Buildings' 'consent Orders' 'objector Participation' 'rail Corridor Conditions' 'isolated Site Development Potential']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'development Consent' 'development Control Plans' 'residential Flat Buildings' 'consent Orders' 'objector Participation' 'rail Corridor Conditions' 'isolated Site Development Potential']

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 Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a S 82 a Review of Refusal of Development Application 229 of 2004 / Ex Tempore Judgment on Proposed Consent Orders and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development consent should be granted for a five residential storey development at 16-20 Grosvenor Street, Croydon.' 'Whether the property known as 14A Grosvenor Street would be sterilised or left as an orphan and undevelopable site.' 'Whether amended balcony treatment by planter boxes adequately addressed impacts on development potential of adjoining properties.' "Whether RailCorp's concerns about interaction with the railway line were adequately resolved by revised conditions." 'Whether inconsistency between Development Control Plan No. 1 Grosvenor Street and Development Control Plan 18 for Residential Flat Buildings justified refusal or further amendment of the development application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the proposed development, as amended and subject to revised conditions, adequately addressed planning impacts, RailCorp concerns and operational matters; 14A Grosvenor Street would not be sterilised; and the inconsistency between the development control plans did not provide a basis for refusal because Development Control Plan 18 was the later and dominant plan consistent with the Burwood Planning Scheme Ordinance 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application 229 of 2004 to be granted development consent subject to revised plans and conditions to be settled.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is to file and serve revised plans by the close of business on 24 March 2006.' 'The respondent is to file and serve revised conditions of consent by the close of business on 23 March 2006.' 'If the conditions of consent are filed electronically by eCourt, a separate court communication is to be sent...