Perry v Sydney CC [2006] NSWLEC 29

Perry v Sydney CC [2006] NSWLEC 29

The appeal was upheld because the updated amended plans corrected the earlier errors and inconsistencies, the negotiated design satisfactorily resolved the Council's planning issues, the minor addition did not itself cause the major non-compliances with envelope, height and floor space ratio controls, and there was no sufficient reason to refuse the parties' consent orders granting development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Class One Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment on Consent Orders Following Refusal of Development Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions in annexure A; no order as to costs by consent.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Enclosure of Part of Private Upper Level Terrace for Use as a Home Office' 'building Envelope, Height and Floor Space Ratio Controls' 'streetscape Impacts' 'conservation Controls' 'residential Amenity' 'public Interest Under S 79 C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'development Control' 'heritage Conservation'] ['development Application for Enclosure of Part of Private Upper Level Terrace for Use as a Home Office' 'building Envelope, Height and Floor Space Ratio Controls' 'streetscape Impacts' 'conservation Controls' 'residential Amenity' 'public Interest Under S 79 C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979']

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 One Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment on Consent Orders Following Refusal of Development Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether consent should be granted for an amended proposal to construct/enclose a new room on a penthouse roof deck at unit 505/2-12 Smail Street Ultimo.' 'Whether the proposal complied with or satisfactorily addressed building envelope, height, floor space ratio, streetscape, conservation, residential amenity and public interest controls.' 'Whether corrected amended plans were sufficient to support consent orders agreed by the parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the updated amended plans corrected the earlier errors and inconsistencies, the negotiated design satisfactorily resolved the Council's planning issues, the minor addition did not itself cause the major non-compliances with envelope, height and floor space ratio controls, and there was no sufficient reason to refuse the parties' consent orders granting development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions in annexure A; no order as to costs by consent.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application No D/2004/400 proposing enclosure of part of the private upper level terrace for use as a home office at unit 505/2-12 Smail Street Ultimo is determined by the granting of consent subject to the conditions in annexure A.' 'The exhibits are returned to the parties...