Lambert v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 644

Lambert v Sutherland Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 644

The SEPP 1 objection to the minimum allotment depth development standard is well founded because strict compliance would be unreasonable and unnecessary and the objectives of the standard can be met. The proposal is compatible with the locality's streetscape and subdivision pattern, and the amenity and view impacts on adjoining properties are acceptable with conditions governing reduced building height.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Environmental Planning and Development Appeal / Final Judgment After on Site Hearing and Consideration of Amended Plans
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'subdivision' 'sepp 1 Exception' 'streetscape and Character' 'view Loss']
['planning Law' 'environmental Law'] ['development Application' 'subdivision' 'sepp 1 Exception' 'streetscape and Character' 'view Loss']

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

Environmental Planning and Development Appeal / Final Judgment After on Site Hearing and Consideration of Amended Plans

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the SEPP 1 objection to the variation in the allotment depth development standard is well founded' 'Whether the proposed development adversely impacts on the character, streetscape and subdivision pattern of the locality' 'Whether the proposed development creates unacceptable amenity impacts, in particular view loss from adjoining properties']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objection to the minimum allotment depth development standard is well founded because strict compliance would be unreasonable and unnecessary and the objectives of the standard can be met. The proposal is compatible with the locality's streetscape and subdivision pattern, and the amenity and view impacts on adjoining properties are acceptable with conditions governing reduced building height.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application DA 04/1822 for subdivision and new dwelling is approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.' 'Exhibits returned with the exception of Exhibits J and L.']