Massy-Greene v Leichhardt Council [2012] NSWLEC 1202

Massy-Greene v Leichhardt Council [2012] NSWLEC 1202

The proposal substantially demolished the existing warehouse and could not rely on the exemptions or incentives for substantially retained buildings in clauses 19(5) or 23(6) of LEP 2000. Assessed against the objectives of LEP 2000, the FSR breach was not justified because the proposal was a substantial departure...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No. D/2011/485 / Decision After Mandatory Conciliation and Arbitration Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; No Agreement Reached and Proceedings Dealt With Forthwith
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development consent refused.
Legal Topics
['sepp 1 Objections' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'minimum Landscaped Area Development Standard' 'building Conversion and Adaptation' 'development in the Vicinity of Heritage Items' 'internal Amenity' 'impact on Neighbouring Trees']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent' 'residential Development' 'heritage Conservation'] ['sepp 1 Objections' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'minimum Landscaped Area Development Standard' 'building Conversion and Adaptation' 'development in the Vicinity of Heritage Items' 'internal Amenity' 'impact on Neighbouring Trees']

Source-derived case record

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

Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No. D/2011/485 / Decision After Mandatory Conciliation and Arbitration Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; No Agreement Reached and Proceedings Dealt With Forthwith

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the SEPP 1 objection to the FSR development standard was well founded' 'Whether the SEPP 1 objection to the minimum landscaped area development standard was well founded' 'Whether clauses 19(5) or 23(6) of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 applied to exempt or otherwise assist the proposal' 'Whether the proposal should be assessed by reference to the existing warehouse envelope despite substantial demolition of the existing structure']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal substantially demolished the existing warehouse and could not rely on the exemptions or incentives for substantially retained buildings in clauses 19(5) or 23(6) of LEP 2000. Assessed against the objectives of LEP 2000, the FSR breach was not justified because the proposal was a substantial departure from the pattern of surrounding buildings and sought to maximise development within and beyond the existing envelope. The landscaped area breach was not justified because the proposal did not provide landscaped area of suitable size and location for residents' use and substantial tree planting. Compliance with the FSR and minimum landscaped area standards was not unreasonable or...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development consent refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application no. D/2011/485 for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings behind the façade of an existing warehouse building at 5-7 Manning Street, Rozelle, is refused consent.' 'The exhibits, other than exhibits 1, A, B, E, F and L, are returned.']