Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v. Sydney City Council [1998] NSWLEC 148

Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v. Sydney City Council [1998] NSWLEC 148

The development proposal fails to meet the relevant objectives and planning principles under SREP 26 and the Ultimo-Pyrmont Urban Development Plan, specifically in terms of achieving high quality residential amenity, compliance with facade and massing controls, and provision of quality private and communal open space; consequently, the appeal must be refused.

Parties
Applicant: Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd; Respondent: Sydney City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Application, Residential Development, Urban Planning, Environmental Planning, Amenity, Urban Design
Environmental Law Administrative Law Development Application Residential Development Urban Planning Environmental Planning Amenity Urban Design

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd

Applicant

Sydney City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the proposal achieve a high quality residential environment and character as required by SREP 26?
  2. 2 Does the proposal comply with the principles and controls in the Ultimo-Pyrmont Urban Development Plan?
  3. 3 Is the proposed building excessive in height, massing, bulk and scale?

Ratio Decidendi

The development proposal fails to meet the relevant objectives and planning principles under SREP 26 and the Ultimo-Pyrmont Urban Development Plan, specifically in terms of achieving high quality residential amenity, compliance with facade and massing controls, and provision of quality private and communal open space; consequently, the appeal must be refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The exhibits may be returned.