Smyth Planning v Randwick City Council [2004] NSWLEC 34

Smyth Planning v Randwick City Council [2004] NSWLEC 34

The SEPP 1 objection to the FSR standard was well founded because compliance was unnecessary: the exceedance did not contribute to bulk and scale and allowing it assisted economic use of land while reducing pressure to build to the maximum height envelope. The impacts on views from the public domain and from 5, 1/7, 12/12 and 3/18 Daintrey Crescent were acceptable in planning terms, but the evidence was insufficient to determine whether further modification was required to protect views from 4/7 and 9 Daintrey Crescent. The three-month amended plans requirement was deleted, and further expert consideration and a further hearing were proposed before finalising the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment on Contested Conditions and Planning Issues, With Further Hearing Proposed Before Final Orders
Outcome
SEPP 1 objection upheld; appeal against the three-month amended plans requirement upheld; final resolution of design modification and orders deferred for further hearing.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'deferred Commencement Condition' 'view Sharing' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objection' 'floor Space Ratio' 'development Control Plan']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'deferred Commencement Condition' 'view Sharing' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objection' 'floor Space Ratio' 'development Control Plan']

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

Development Application Appeal Pursuant to S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment on Contested Conditions and Planning Issues, With Further Hearing Proposed Before Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deferred commencement condition requiring the Daintrey Crescent building height to be lowered to a maximum RL of 68.75 m was permissible and appropriate.' 'Whether the requirement for amended plans to be submitted within three months of consent should be upheld.' 'Whether the SEPP 1 objection to the floor space ratio standard in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 should be sustained.' 'Whether the proposed development caused unacceptable view loss from adjoining or nearby properties and from the public domain.' 'Whether further design modification was required to ameliorate view loss from unit 4/7 Daintrey Crescent and 9 Daintrey Crescent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objection to the FSR standard was well founded because compliance was unnecessary: the exceedance did not contribute to bulk and scale and allowing it assisted economic use of land while reducing pressure to build to the maximum height envelope. The impacts on views from the public domain and from 5, 1/7, 12/12 and 3/18 Daintrey Crescent were acceptable in planning terms, but the evidence was insufficient to determine whether further modification was required to protect views from 4/7 and 9 Daintrey Crescent. The three-month amended plans requirement was deleted, and further expert consideration and a further hearing were proposed before finalising the appeal.

Court Disposition

SEPP 1 objection upheld; appeal against the three-month amended plans requirement upheld; final resolution of design modification and orders deferred for further hearing.

Orders

  • ['The SEPP 1 objection concerning FSR is upheld.' 'The requirement that amended plans be finalised within three months of the date of consent is deleted.' 'The applicant is to consider whether partial design modification might ameliorate view loss from 4/7 and 9 Daintrey Crescent.' 'The matter is proposed to be set...