Maygood Australia Pty Limited v Willoughby City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1337

Maygood Australia Pty Limited v Willoughby City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1337

The appeal would be upheld in part because some modifications could be approved without unacceptable environmental impact, but the proposed south-western corner bathroom additions, level 9 southern and western presentation changes, and specified southern protrusions created unreasonable streetscape, bulk, massing and architectural integrity impacts when assessed against the original consent, s 79C matters, SEPP 65 design principles and relevant planning controls. Other disputed setback changes did not significantly add to bulk and were allowed. Final orders were deferred until satisfactory amended and consistent plans and amended conditions were provided.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning a S 96 Modification Application for a Residential Flat Building / Preliminary Findings After Hearing; Final Orders Deferred Pending Amended Plans and Conditions
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part, subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans and amended conditions; final orders deferred.
Legal Topics
['modification Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'streetscape Design' 'bulk and Mass' 'floor Space Ratio' 'setbacks' 'sepp 65 Design Principles' 'residential Flat Design Code' 'parking' 'landscape Plans']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'development Consent Modification' 'land Use Planning'] ['modification Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'streetscape Design' 'bulk and Mass' 'floor Space Ratio' 'setbacks' 'sepp 65 Design Principles' 'residential Flat Design Code' 'parking' 'landscape Plans']

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 Concerning a S 96 Modification Application for a Residential Flat Building / Preliminary Findings After Hearing; Final Orders Deferred Pending Amended Plans and Conditions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed s 96 modifications were substantially the same development as that approved by the Court.' 'Whether the modified design, including increased floor space and reduced setbacks, was acceptable having regard to s 79C matters, SEPP 65 design principles, the Residential Flat Design Code, and the Willoughby planning regime.' 'Whether the south-western corner additions, level 9 changes, southern elevation changes, and other disputed setbacks should be permitted or conditioned.' 'Whether updated and consistent plans, landscape plans, parking plans, adaptable unit plans, ramp details and BASIX material were required before final orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal would be upheld in part because some modifications could be approved without unacceptable environmental impact, but the proposed south-western corner bathroom additions, level 9 southern and western presentation changes, and specified southern protrusions created unreasonable streetscape, bulk, massing and architectural integrity impacts when assessed against the original consent, s 79C matters, SEPP 65 design principles and relevant planning controls. Other disputed setback changes did not significantly add to bulk and were allowed. Final orders were deferred until satisfactory amended and consistent plans and amended conditions were provided.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part, subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans and amended conditions; final orders deferred.

Orders

  • ['The applicant was allowed until 20 August to file an amended full set of A1 plans and a landscape plan.' 'The amended plans must include basement parking, an adaptable units plan, an access ramp long section, and must address original consent conditions including deferred commencement requirements.' "The plans...