Waters v Leichhardt C [2005] NSWLEC 390

Waters v Leichhardt C [2005] NSWLEC 390

The proposal in its current form is unsatisfactory due to excessive visual bulk, failure to meet front and side setback requirements, and unacceptable impact on view corridors and the streetscape, contrary to the objectives and controls of the Leichhardt LEP 2000 and DCP 2000. However, with identified amendments, an acceptable design may be achieved; opportunity should be allowed for the applicant to submit amended plans for further assessment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Regarding Council Refusal of Development Application
Outcome
Opportunity for applicant to submit amended plans; final orders deferred.
Legal Topics
['floor Space Ratio' 'development Control Plan' 'setbacks' 'streetscape' 'view Impacts' 'bulk and Scale' 'carparking' 'local Environmental Plans']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'land Use'] ['floor Space Ratio' 'development Control Plan' 'setbacks' 'streetscape' 'view Impacts' 'bulk and Scale' 'carparking' 'local Environmental Plans']

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 / Judgment on Appeal Regarding Council Refusal of Development Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Non-compliance with Floor Space Ratio under Leichhardt LEP 2000' 'Non-compliance with setback, envelope, and building controls under Leichhardt DCP 2000' 'Adverse visual bulk and streetscape impact' 'Unreasonable loss of views for neighbours' 'Unsatisfactory carparking design and garage dominance' 'Inadequate landscaping information']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal in its current form is unsatisfactory due to excessive visual bulk, failure to meet front and side setback requirements, and unacceptable impact on view corridors and the streetscape, contrary to the objectives and controls of the Leichhardt LEP 2000 and DCP 2000. However, with identified amendments, an acceptable design may be achieved; opportunity should be allowed for the applicant to submit amended plans for further assessment.

Court Disposition

Opportunity for applicant to submit amended plans; final orders deferred.

Orders

  • ['Applicant may submit amended plans within two weeks of publication of findings.' 'Council to re-notify and consider amended plans within a further five weeks.' 'On the eighth week, parties to contact the Court for further directions.']