MJ Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2021] NSWLEC 1723

MJ Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2021] NSWLEC 1723

The Court was satisfied, based on parties' agreement and evidence, that the clause 4.6 objection adequately addressed the reasons why compliance with the building height standard was unreasonable in the circumstances, the proposal met zone objectives, supplied affordable housing, had no contamination or other prohibitive environmental constraints, and thus consent should be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment Following Conciliation and Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant to pay Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'height Restriction Variation' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'conciliation Process' 'environmental Planning Instruments']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'height Restriction Variation' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'conciliation Process' 'environmental Planning Instruments']

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

Appeal / Judgment Following Conciliation and Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development consent should be granted for a residential flat building exceeding height restrictions under Strathfield LEP 2012' 'Whether the proposal complies with affordable housing and environmental planning requirements' 'Whether the Court can permit an exceedance of maximum building height via cl 4.6 variation']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied, based on parties' agreement and evidence, that the clause 4.6 objection adequately addressed the reasons why compliance with the building height standard was unreasonable in the circumstances, the proposal met zone objectives, supplied affordable housing, had no contamination or other prohibitive environmental constraints, and thus consent should be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant to pay Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment to the development application pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or as assessed." 'The appeal is upheld.' "Development consent is granted to Development Application...