Drivas v Canada Bay [2004] NSWLEC 111

Drivas v Canada Bay [2004] NSWLEC 111

The proposal significantly exceeded applicable planning controls for FSR, side setbacks and number of storeys, and those departures were not justified by the small allotment or neighbouring development. The resulting bulk, particularly 900mm from the common boundary with No 43, would have an unacceptable impact on that neighbour, so the appeal was dismissed and the development application refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'development Control Plan' 'development Standards' 'floor Space Ratio' 'side Setbacks' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'neighbour Amenity' 'planning Principle: Development Potential of Small Sites']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'development Control Plan' 'development Standards' 'floor Space Ratio' 'side Setbacks' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'neighbour Amenity' 'planning Principle: Development Potential of Small Sites']

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 Refusal of a Development Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposal had too much bulk.' 'Whether the impact on neighbours was acceptable.' 'Whether the impact on the conservation area was acceptable.' 'Whether significant exceedance of planning controls was justified by the small size of the site or the bulk of adjoining buildings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal significantly exceeded applicable planning controls for FSR, side setbacks and number of storeys, and those departures were not justified by the small allotment or neighbouring development. The resulting bulk, particularly 900mm from the common boundary with No 43, would have an unacceptable impact on that neighbour, so the appeal was dismissed and the development application refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development application to demolish the existing building and erect a two-storey house over basement parking at 41 Thompson Street, Drummoyne' 'The exhibits are returned.']