Malass v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1043
The proposed development did not meet required building separations and rear setbacks at upper levels, potentially prejudicing adjoining property development and failing to satisfy the objectives of planning controls. The car parking was sufficient, but cumulative amendments to the application were not minor, justifying an order for costs under s97B.
- Parties
- Applicant: Rabi Malass; Respondent: Blacktown City Council
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 February 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Development Application, Setbacks, Building Separation, Car Parking, Waste Collection, Solar Access, Costs
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rabi Malass
Applicant
Blacktown City Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed development complies with planning controls relating to setbacks, building separation, car parking, waste collection access, and solar access
- 2 Whether the amendments to the application were minor for the purposes of s97B costs
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed development did not meet required building separations and rear setbacks at upper levels, potentially prejudicing adjoining property development and failing to satisfy the objectives of planning controls. The car parking was sufficient, but cumulative amendments to the application were not minor, justifying an order for costs under s97B.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Development Application No. 16-02942 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a residential flat building at 11-13 Clifton Street Blacktown is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment