Pennine Developments Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2019] NSWLEC 1031

Pennine Developments Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2019] NSWLEC 1031

The development warranted refusal because, although proposed as infill affordable multi dwelling housing, its design was not compatible with the future character of the local area and the site was not suitable for the proposal. When viewed from Pendle Way it would have a character similar to a residential flat building, including extended two storey scale, private open space in the front setback, stacked single storey units and dormer windows continuing the two storey form. The Court was not persuaded that Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 was inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, and found the DCP controls relevant to the character...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Da/2018/16 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and development application refused.
Legal Topics
['multi Dwelling Housing' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'character Compatibility' 'development Control Plan Compliance' 'private Open Space' 'setbacks' 'residential Amenity']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['multi Dwelling Housing' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'character Compatibility' 'development Control Plan Compliance' 'private Open Space' 'setbacks' 'residential Amenity']

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 8.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Da/2018/16 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed infill affordable housing development was compatible with the character of the local area under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.' 'Whether the two storey built form, streetscape presentation, private open space, setbacks and privacy impacts warranted refusal.' 'Whether the site was suitable for the proposed development under s4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.']

Ratio Decidendi

The development warranted refusal because, although proposed as infill affordable multi dwelling housing, its design was not compatible with the future character of the local area and the site was not suitable for the proposal. When viewed from Pendle Way it would have a character similar to a residential flat building, including extended two storey scale, private open space in the front setback, stacked single storey units and dormer windows continuing the two storey form. The Court was not persuaded that Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 was inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, and found the DCP controls relevant to the character...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application No. 2018/16 for demolition of existing dwellings and ancillary structures on site; lot consolidation; and construction of a multi dwelling residential development of ten units over basement parking at 70-72 Pendle Way, Pendle Hill is refused.' 'The exhibits are...