Revelop Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2016] NSWLEC 1452

Revelop Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2016] NSWLEC 1452

The appeal was upheld because, after considering s 79C matters, the expert evidence, submissions and the site inspection, the Court was satisfied that the amended boarding house proposal complied with the relevant provisions of SEPP ARH, THLEP and THDCP, was compatible with the character of the local area, would not have unreasonable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, achieved the requisite pedestrian safety with the proposed 20m footpath, was unlikely to cause significant traffic safety issues, and was in the public interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / Hearing Under S 34(4)(b)(ii) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 After Conciliation Was Terminated
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'boarding House' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'character of Local Area' 'traffic and Pedestrian Safety' 'residential Amenity' 'development Consent']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'boarding House' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'character of Local Area' 'traffic and Pedestrian Safety' 'residential Amenity' 'development Consent']

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 Against Refusal of a Development Application / Hearing Under S 34(4)(b)(ii) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 After Conciliation Was Terminated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed boarding house was compatible with the existing and desired future character of the local area under cl. 30A of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.' 'Whether the proposal would have unacceptable impacts on adjoining properties, including privacy, visual bulk and scale.' 'Whether the proposal would create unacceptable traffic, parking or pedestrian safety impacts, including whether pedestrian access satisfied the walking distance requirements in State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.' 'Whether the proposal was in the public interest having regard to matters raised in submissions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because, after considering s 79C matters, the expert evidence, submissions and the site inspection, the Court was satisfied that the amended boarding house proposal complied with the relevant provisions of SEPP ARH, THLEP and THDCP, was compatible with the character of the local area, would not have unreasonable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, achieved the requisite pedestrian safety with the proposed 20m footpath, was unlikely to cause significant traffic safety issues, and was in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ["Leave is granted to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure 'A'." "Pursuant to s 97 B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the applicant is to pay the respondent's costs thrown away in the sum of $1500 within 28 days of the date of these orders." 'The appeal is upheld.'...