Michael Murr V Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1369

Michael Murr V Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1369

The application is approved as if LEP Amendment 2 had not been made because the absence of a cl 4.6 request prevents the Court from granting consent under the amended LEP. The amended development complies generally with the intended controls and demonstrates reasonable efforts to address neighbour concerns; impacts are not unreasonable and no basis exists for refusal.

Parties
Applicant: Michael Murr; Respondent: Georges River Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Determination
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Development Application, Height Controls, Bulk and Scale, Amenity Impacts, Community Objections, Site Isolation, Interpretation of Savings Provisions, Variation of Development Standards
Planning and Environment Law Development Application Height Controls Bulk and Scale Amenity Impacts Community Objections Site Isolation Interpretation of Savings Provisions +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Murr

Applicant

Georges River Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Impact of proposed residential flat building on neighbours and character of the area
  2. 2 Interpretation of savings provision in Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP), Amendment 2
  3. 3 Application of height controls and development standards

Ratio Decidendi

The application is approved as if LEP Amendment 2 had not been made because the absence of a cl 4.6 request prevents the Court from granting consent under the amended LEP. The amended development complies generally with the intended controls and demonstrates reasonable efforts to address neighbour concerns; impacts are not unreasonable and no basis exists for refusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • Development Application No 2016/75 for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a residential flat building at 399-403 Princes Highway, Carlton is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.