Multistar Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [1999] NSWLEC 205

Multistar Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [1999] NSWLEC 205

The proposed development, subject to conditions, is consistent with the aims and objectives of the relevant planning instruments, particularly LEP 96 and supporting instruments. While certain requirements of DCP Amendment No. 7 are not fully satisfied, the DCP is not of sufficient determinative weight to require refusal. The design achieves an appropriate balance between the built form, heritage context, amenity, and urban design. The proposed public car parking is justified under the specific criteria of LEP 96 and associated DCP provisions and does not exceed limits when properly construed. The court is satisfied, having considered expert evidence, that the remaining issues regarding...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Development Consent Appeal / Judgment Following Hearing of Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'local Environmental Plan' 'development Control Plan' 'urban Design' 'heritage' 'car Parking' 'amenity' 'overdevelopment']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Consent' 'local Environmental Plan' 'development Control Plan' 'urban Design' 'heritage' 'car Parking' 'amenity' 'overdevelopment']

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 Consent Appeal / Judgment Following Hearing of Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1996 and related instruments, specifically relating to tower separation, bulk, heritage, amenity, wind, open space, car parking, and compliance with height and floor space controls; Whether weight should be given to the Central Sydney Development Control Plan 1996 Amendment No. 7; Whether the inclusion and operation of a public car park complies with planning controls and is justified; Whether architectural roof features comply with requirements for exceeding height controls; Whether the overall development constitutes overdevelopment of the site.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development, subject to conditions, is consistent with the aims and objectives of the relevant planning instruments, particularly LEP 96 and supporting instruments. While certain requirements of DCP Amendment No. 7 are not fully satisfied, the DCP is not of sufficient determinative weight to require refusal. The design achieves an appropriate balance between the built form, heritage context, amenity, and urban design. The proposed public car parking is justified under the specific criteria of LEP 96 and associated DCP provisions and does not exceed limits when properly construed. The court is satisfied, having considered expert evidence, that the remaining issues regarding...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' "Development Application D99/00078 for demolition (except Moreton's Hotel) and erection of a mixed-use development comprising three residential towers over a podium and basement levels at the relevant site is determined by granting consent generally in accordance with the specified plans, subject...