Mirvac Projects Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2007] NSWLEC 854

Mirvac Projects Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2007] NSWLEC 854

The Court made the consent orders because the only significant impediment identified in earlier consideration was non-compliance with the deep soil landscape requirement, and the SEPP No. 1 objection was well-founded: despite lack of strict compliance with cl 25I(2)(c), the proposal achieved the relevant objectives, would produce a better landscape outcome than the original approval, and there was no sufficient reason to refuse the consent orders sought by the parties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Consent Orders; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'amendment of Original Consent' 'setbacks' 'car Parking' 'deep Soil Landscaping' 'landscaping' 'boundary Fencing' 'storm Water Drainage' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'amendment of Original Consent' 'setbacks' 'car Parking' 'deep Soil Landscaping' 'landscaping' 'boundary Fencing' 'storm Water Drainage' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection']

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

Development Application Appeal / Consent Orders; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether consent orders should be made approving development application DA0879/07 and amendments to the existing consent for the development at 10 Marian Street, Killara.' 'Whether non-compliance with the deep soil landscape requirement under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance should prevent approval.' 'Whether the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection to the deep soil landscape standard was well-founded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made the consent orders because the only significant impediment identified in earlier consideration was non-compliance with the deep soil landscape requirement, and the SEPP No. 1 objection was well-founded: despite lack of strict compliance with cl 25I(2)(c), the proposal achieved the relevant objectives, would produce a better landscape outcome than the original approval, and there was no sufficient reason to refuse the consent orders sought by the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application No. DA 0879/07 lodged with the Respondent Council on 13 September 2007 for construction of Future Works, use of the whole completed development, modification of the Existing Consent pursuant to conditions imposed under S80A(1)(b) of the Act, and deletion of...