Ross v Lane [2022] NSWCA 235

Ross v Lane [2022] NSWCA 235

The applicability of SEPP 65 (cl 4(1)(a)(ii)) is a matter for the consent authority to determine, not the Court, and assessment of 'substantial redevelopment or refurbishment' is by reference to the building itself, excluding impacts on neighbouring properties. The proposed works were not substantial for SEPP 65 purposes, so the challenge fails.

Parties
Appellant: Olivia Ross; First Respondent: Patrick Lane; Second Respondent: The Council of the City of Sydney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Facts, Applicability of State Environment Planning Policy 65, Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Development Approval, Substantial Redevelopment/substantial Refurbishment, Consent Authority Determination
Administrative Law Planning Law Jurisdictional Facts Applicability of State Environment Planning Policy 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development Development Approval Substantial Redevelopment/substantial Refurbishment Consent Authority Determination

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olivia Ross

Appellant

Patrick Lane

First Respondent

The Council of the City of Sydney

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is satisfaction of cl 4(1)(a)(ii) of SEPP 65 ('substantial redevelopment or refurbishment') a matter for the Court or consent authority to determine?
  2. 2 Did the primary judge err in concluding the proposed development is not a 'substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing building'?
  3. 3 Should SEPP 65 be construed to consider impacts on neighbouring amenity or only the subject building?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicability of SEPP 65 (cl 4(1)(a)(ii)) is a matter for the consent authority to determine, not the Court, and assessment of 'substantial redevelopment or refurbishment' is by reference to the building itself, excluding impacts on neighbouring properties. The proposed works were not substantial for SEPP 65 purposes, so the challenge fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay the First Respondent's costs of the appeal