Nordea Capital Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1759

Nordea Capital Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1759

The variations sought under clause 4.6 for height, FSR, and minimum lot size are justified, as compliance in the circumstances would be unnecessary. The amended proposal demonstrates a suitable urban design outcome compatible with the desired future character of the locality, responds to topography, provides street activation, and meets zone and standard objectives without adverse amenity impacts. The hardships due to site constraints make strict compliance unreasonable. Orders are made accordingly.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'minimum Lot Size' 'height Non Compliance' 'fsr Non Compliance' 'clause 4.6 Variations' 'building Separation and Setbacks' 'public Interest']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'minimum Lot Size' 'height Non Compliance' 'fsr Non Compliance' 'clause 4.6 Variations' 'building Separation and Setbacks' 'public Interest']

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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether variations to height, floor space ratio (FSR), and minimum lot size standards should be allowed under clause 4.6 of the LEP' 'Whether the proposed development is compatible with the bulk, scale and character of existing and future surrounding development' 'Whether the proposal meets the objectives for the R4 High Density Residential zone and applicable standards' 'Whether the proposed development provides adequate setbacks and building separation, especially the eastern elevation']

Ratio Decidendi

The variations sought under clause 4.6 for height, FSR, and minimum lot size are justified, as compliance in the circumstances would be unnecessary. The amended proposal demonstrates a suitable urban design outcome compatible with the desired future character of the locality, responds to topography, provides street activation, and meets zone and standard objectives without adverse amenity impacts. The hardships due to site constraints make strict compliance unreasonable. Orders are made accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'DA/534/2016 for a residential flat building at 17-21 Moseley Street, Carlingford is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's reasonable costs under s.97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for assessment of the...