Pingola Pty Ltd and Anor v Parramatta City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1270

Pingola Pty Ltd and Anor v Parramatta City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1270

Division 1 of Part 2 of SEPP ARH does not apply because the 2(a) zone under LEP 2001 is not equivalent to any named residential zone under the Standard Instrument; therefore, the proposed development is prohibited and cannot be carried out with consent. Even if compatibility with local area character were considered, the proposal was found not compatible with either existing or future character.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'affordable Housing' 'zone Equivalence' 'compatibility With Local Area Character']
['planning and Environment'] ['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'affordable Housing' 'zone Equivalence' 'compatibility With Local Area Character']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed development is prohibited under relevant planning instruments' 'Whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area']

Ratio Decidendi

Division 1 of Part 2 of SEPP ARH does not apply because the 2(a) zone under LEP 2001 is not equivalent to any named residential zone under the Standard Instrument; therefore, the proposed development is prohibited and cannot be carried out with consent. Even if compatibility with local area character were considered, the proposal was found not compatible with either existing or future character.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The development application for an affordable housing development at 27A and 31-35 Louis Street, Granville is refused.' 'The exhibits, except Exhibits 1 and E, may be returned.']