One Funds Management Ltd ATF Kingsgrove Property Trust v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1508

One Funds Management Ltd ATF Kingsgrove Property Trust v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1508

The proposed development had an unacceptable impact on the locality and was inconsistent with Hurstville Development Control Plan 1, particularly Section 5.2: Light Industrial and the setback objectives in Section 5.2.3. The replacement planting was insufficient and uncertain to screen or offset the loss of significant trees and the insertion of an active loading dock in the Vanessa Street frontage. The proposal varied the required 7.6m setback by locating structures as close as 900mm from the Vanessa Street boundary and failed to achieve the setback performance criteria. Any positive economic benefits did not outweigh the detrimental streetscape and amenity impacts, so the appeal was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application Da/2017/0151 Determined After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Development Application DA/2017/0151 refused.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'refusal of Development Application' 'tree Removal' 'industrial Development' 'setbacks' 'streetscape Impact' 'landscaping' 'loading Dock Access']
['planning and Environment' 'land Use and Development'] ['development Consent' 'refusal of Development Application' 'tree Removal' 'industrial Development' 'setbacks' 'streetscape Impact' 'landscaping' 'loading Dock Access']

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 Development Application Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application Da/2017/0151 Determined After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed loading dock on Vanessa Street would have an unacceptable impact on existing significant trees within the street frontage.' 'Whether the detrimental environmental impact of the loading dock in Vanessa Street could be avoided by an alternative dock location in The Crescent.' 'Whether the proposal was consistent with Hurstville Development Control Plan 1, including the light industrial and setback provisions.' 'Whether potential positive economic benefits of the development outweighed detrimental streetscape and amenity impacts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed development had an unacceptable impact on the locality and was inconsistent with Hurstville Development Control Plan 1, particularly Section 5.2: Light Industrial and the setback objectives in Section 5.2.3. The replacement planting was insufficient and uncertain to screen or offset the loss of significant trees and the insertion of an active loading dock in the Vanessa Street frontage. The proposal varied the required 7.6m setback by locating structures as close as 900mm from the Vanessa Street boundary and failed to achieve the setback performance criteria. Any positive economic benefits did not outweigh the detrimental streetscape and amenity impacts, so the appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Development Application DA/2017/0151 refused.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans.' 'As agreed, pursuant to s8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs thrown away by reason of the amended plans for the agreed amount of $3,140 within 14 days of these orders.' 'The appeal is...