Pallas Development Management Pty Limited trading as Fortis Development Group v Woollahra Municipal Council [2023] NSWLEC 1005

Pallas Development Management Pty Limited trading as Fortis Development Group v Woollahra Municipal Council [2023] NSWLEC 1005

Because the proposed development contravened both the height and FSR development standards, development consent could not be granted unless cl 4.6 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 was satisfied. The Court was not satisfied that either written request adequately demonstrated sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contraventions or that compliance with the relevant standard was unreasonable or unnecessary. The requests relied on additional commercial floorspace, claimed efficiency, consistency with context, lack of impacts, design benefits, and previous approvals, but did not sufficiently tether those matters to the contravening elements or define and analyse...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Five Storey Commercial Development' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Requests' 'desired Future Character' 'bulk and Scale' 'woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014' 'woollahra Development Control Plan 2015']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Appeals'] ['development Application for Five Storey Commercial Development' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Requests' 'desired Future Character' 'bulk and Scale' 'woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014' 'woollahra Development Control Plan 2015']

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 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the written request concerning contravention of the height development standard adequately demonstrated sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.' 'Whether the written request concerning contravention of the floor space ratio development standard adequately demonstrated sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.' 'Whether the written requests demonstrated that compliance with the height and floor space ratio development standards was unreasonable or unnecessary.' 'Whether the proposed development could be granted consent despite contravening the development standards in cll 4.3 and 4.4 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proposed development contravened both the height and FSR development standards, development consent could not be granted unless cl 4.6 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 was satisfied. The Court was not satisfied that either written request adequately demonstrated sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contraventions or that compliance with the relevant standard was unreasonable or unnecessary. The requests relied on additional commercial floorspace, claimed efficiency, consistency with context, lack of impacts, design benefits, and previous approvals, but did not sufficiently tether those matters to the contravening elements or define and analyse...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The development application DA 535/2021 for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a five-storey commercial development with four levels of basement parking at 19, 21, 23-25 and 27 Bay Street, Double Bay, is refused.' 'Exhibits A, B, E, F, 1, 2, 4 and 6 are...