SB Two Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Council [2014] NSWLEC 1265

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the floor space ratio standard in cl 4.4 of the LEP, and the contravention is not justified under cl 4.6, so consent cannot be granted.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 24 December 2014
Procedural Posture: Class 1 Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Judgment
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics: ['development Application' 'variation to Floor Space Ratio' 'application of Cl 4.6' 'environmental Planning Instruments']

['planning and Environment'] ['development Application' 'variation to Floor Space Ratio' 'application of Cl 4.6' 'environmental Planning Instruments']

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

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether contravention of the floor space ratio (FSR) standard in cl 4.4 of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 is acceptable and satisfies cl 4.6' 'Whether compliance with the FSR standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances' 'Whether the proposal meets the objectives of the FSR standard']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the floor space ratio standard in cl 4.4 of the LEP, and the contravention is not justified under cl 4.6, so consent cannot be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The development application (D/2014/250) for alterations and additions to the fourth (attic) level of the three approved dwellings at 27 Union Street, Balmain East, is refused.' 'The exhibits, except Exhibit 1, may be returned.']