Abdul-Rahman v Canterbury Council [2014] NSWLEC 1092

Abdul-Rahman v Canterbury Council [2014] NSWLEC 1092

The Commissioner accepted that the front setback variation was not significant and met the DCP setback objectives, that the 400mm southern landscaped setback could be accepted if further plans showed no additional landscaping could be provided, that amended façade treatment would satisfy the façade design objectives, that the development should be assessed as 2 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 1 bedroom rather than 3 x 2 bedroom, and that the remaining visitor parking deficiency could be addressed on site. Amended plans and conditions were therefore required before orders upholding the appeal and approving the development application would be made in chambers.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application No. DA 268/2013 / Principal Judgment; Directions for Amended Plans and Conditions
Outcome
Directions made for amended plans and conditions; the judgment states that on submission of agreed amended plans and conditions the appeal will be upheld and the development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['multi Dwelling Housing' 'setbacks' 'private Open Space' 'deep Soil Area' 'building Design and Articulation' 'off Street Parking']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['multi Dwelling Housing' 'setbacks' 'private Open Space' 'deep Soil Area' 'building Design and Articulation' 'off Street Parking']

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 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application No. DA 268/2013 / Principal Judgment; Directions for Amended Plans and Conditions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development should be refused for excessive bulk and scale or being out of character due to inadequate front and rear setbacks, inadequate private open space, inadequate deep soil area, and building design.' 'Whether the proposed development provided adequate off street parking.' 'Whether amended plans and conditions could address the identified planning issues.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner accepted that the front setback variation was not significant and met the DCP setback objectives, that the 400mm southern landscaped setback could be accepted if further plans showed no additional landscaping could be provided, that amended façade treatment would satisfy the façade design objectives, that the development should be assessed as 2 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 1 bedroom rather than 3 x 2 bedroom, and that the remaining visitor parking deficiency could be addressed on site. Amended plans and conditions were therefore required before orders upholding the appeal and approving the development application would be made in chambers.

Court Disposition

Directions made for amended plans and conditions; the judgment states that on submission of agreed amended plans and conditions the appeal will be upheld and the development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is to provide amended plans addressing an open or clear balustrade to the balcony on the eastern façade.' 'The applicant is to provide turning circles to show entry and exit to the garages to maximise landscaping along the southern boundary.' 'The applicant is to provide additional detailing to the...