Bris v Parramatta City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1046

Bris v Parramatta City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1046

Because the savings provision in cl 1.8A of LEP 2011 applied, the development application remained permissible and had to be determined as if LEP 2011 had not commenced. Although LEP 2011 was imminent and certain, the proposed development satisfied the relevant DCP 2005 requirements, there were no merit concerns pressed by the council, and the development did not substantially undermine the R2 Low Density Residential zone objective when assessed against the existing mixed built form and local context. The resident objections were not sufficient to warrant refusal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Multi Dwelling Housing' 'savings Provision in Local Environmental Plan' 'weight to Be Given to Draft Lep' 'residential Zone Objectives' 'resident Objections']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application for Multi Dwelling Housing' 'savings Provision in Local Environmental Plan' 'weight to Be Given to Draft Lep' 'residential Zone Objectives' 'resident Objections']

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 a Development Application / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What weight should be given to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as a draft LEP because of the savings provision in cl 1.8A.' 'Whether the proposed development substantially undermined the relevant objective of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.' 'Whether resident objections concerning street width, heritage impact, parking, character, privacy, solar access, noise, amenity, bulk and scale warranted refusal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the savings provision in cl 1.8A of LEP 2011 applied, the development application remained permissible and had to be determined as if LEP 2011 had not commenced. Although LEP 2011 was imminent and certain, the proposed development satisfied the relevant DCP 2005 requirements, there were no merit concerns pressed by the council, and the development did not substantially undermine the R2 Low Density Residential zone objective when assessed against the existing mixed built form and local context. The resident objections were not sufficient to warrant refusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application No. DA/299/2011 for the consolidation, demolition of all improvements and construction of 2 x 2 storey buildings containing 9 dwellings over basement car parking with strata subdivision at 55-57 Belmore Street, Parramatta is approved subject to the conditions in...