Steele v Waverley Council [2018] NSWLEC 1659

Steele v Waverley Council [2018] NSWLEC 1659

The applicant's written request did not adequately demonstrate that compliance with the FSR standard was unreasonable or unnecessary, nor that the impacts on neighbouring properties' amenity would be preserved. The Court was not satisfied to exercise the power to grant development consent in light of the additional overlooking and bulk impacts, and public interest considerations. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the development application refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'variation to Floor Space Ratio' 'environmental Amenity' 'public Interest' 'residential Flat Buildings']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['development Application' 'variation to Floor Space Ratio' 'environmental Amenity' 'public Interest' 'residential Flat Buildings']

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

Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether compliance with the floor space ratio (FSR) development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances' 'Whether there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the FSR standard' 'Whether the proposed development will preserve the environmental amenity of neighbouring properties']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's written request did not adequately demonstrate that compliance with the FSR standard was unreasonable or unnecessary, nor that the impacts on neighbouring properties' amenity would be preserved. The Court was not satisfied to exercise the power to grant development consent in light of the additional overlooking and bulk impacts, and public interest considerations. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the development application refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application DA-410/2017 for alterations and additions to an approved residential flat building at 585 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of Exhibits 1, C and D.']