Ostron Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 467

Ostron Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 467

The proposal did not merit consent because it failed to satisfy cl 31(a) and cl 31(c) of SEPPSL. Its excessive two-storey building elements, long and insufficiently separated building forms, prominent 63 metre presentation of Block 2 to Victor Crescent, and combined bulk of other blocks were incompatible with the established character of single-storey dwellings on spacious landscaped allotments and did not contribute positively to the quality and identity of the area. The SEPP 1 objection to the cl 38(4)(c) height standard was not supported, and the non-compliance reinforced the adverse bulk, scale, visual amenity and overlooking concerns.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Council's Refusal of a Development Application for a Seniors Living Development / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; SEPP 1 objection disallowed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'state Environmental Planning Policy Seniors Living' 'neighbourhood Amenity and Streetscape' 'height Controls' 'bulk and Scale' 'landscaping' 'traffic and Parking' 'stormwater Disposal' 'public Interest' 'sepp 1 Objection']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'development Consent' 'seniors Housing'] ['development Application' 'state Environmental Planning Policy Seniors Living' 'neighbourhood Amenity and Streetscape' 'height Controls' 'bulk and Scale' 'landscaping' 'traffic and Parking' 'stormwater Disposal' 'public Interest' 'sepp 1 Objection']

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 Against Council's Refusal of a Development Application for a Seniors Living Development / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the development contributes to the quality and identity of the character of the area, including impacts of bulk on residential character and privacy' 'Whether the proposal complies with height controls requiring single storey buildings in the rear 25% of the site under cl 38' 'Whether traffic and parking impacts warrant refusal' 'Whether access to services is satisfactory' 'Whether stormwater disposal is satisfactory' 'Whether the proposal is in the public interest']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal did not merit consent because it failed to satisfy cl 31(a) and cl 31(c) of SEPPSL. Its excessive two-storey building elements, long and insufficiently separated building forms, prominent 63 metre presentation of Block 2 to Victor Crescent, and combined bulk of other blocks were incompatible with the established character of single-storey dwellings on spacious landscaped allotments and did not contribute positively to the quality and identity of the area. The SEPP 1 objection to the cl 38(4)(c) height standard was not supported, and the non-compliance reinforced the adverse bulk, scale, visual amenity and overlooking concerns.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; SEPP 1 objection disallowed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The SEPP 1 objection to the building height development standard in cl 38 (4) (c) of SEPPSL is disallowed.' 'Development application No LUA 06/0555 for a Seniors Living development comprising 52 units at 22-24 Church Road, Moss Vale is refused.' 'The exhibits may be returned except 4,...