Rainbow Force Pty Limited v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2002] NSWLEC 146

Rainbow Force Pty Limited v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2002] NSWLEC 146

The appeal was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that mandatory and merit requirements for the proposed SEPP 5 development were met. The depth of the site meant occupants of rear units would have to travel more than 400 metres to public transport, so cl 12 was not satisfied. The evidence did not...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against a Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['state Environmental Planning Policy No 5' 'housing for Elderly and Disabled People' 'development Application Deemed Refusal' 'access to Facilities and Services' 'reticulated Water and Sewage Disposal' 'neighbourhood Amenity' 'visual and Acoustic Privacy' 'solar Access' 'good Design']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'land Use and Development Consent'] ['state Environmental Planning Policy No 5' 'housing for Elderly and Disabled People' 'development Application Deemed Refusal' 'access to Facilities and Services' 'reticulated Water and Sewage Disposal' 'neighbourhood Amenity' 'visual and Acoustic Privacy' 'solar Access' 'good Design']

Source-derived case record

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 Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against a Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed SEPP 5 development complied with cl 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 5, including good design.' 'Whether the proposed development complied with cl 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 5 concerning access to facilities and services.' 'Whether the proposed development complied with cl 12(2A) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 5 concerning access to home delivered meals, personal care, home nursing and assistance with housework.' 'Whether the proposed development complied with cl 12(4) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 5 concerning connection to a reticulated water system and adequate facilities for removal or disposal of sewage.' 'Whether adequate regard had been given to the design principles in cl 25 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 5, including neighbourhood amenity, visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, and accessibility.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that mandatory and merit requirements for the proposed SEPP 5 development were met. The depth of the site meant occupants of rear units would have to travel more than 400 metres to public transport, so cl 12 was not satisfied. The evidence did not establish adequate water supply and sewage disposal arrangements, particularly because the proposal depended on untested and unlicensed bore water and lacked Sydney Water confirmation, so cl 12(4) was not satisfied. The proposal also failed to give adequate regard to neighbourhood amenity, visual and acoustic privacy, solar access and design principles under cl 25, and was not good...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The exhibits be returned.']