Solitarii Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1213

Solitarii Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1213

The SEPP 1 objections to the floor space ratio and wall height standards were well founded because strict compliance was unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances: the proposal achieved the purposes of the standards, did not create unacceptable amenity impacts, and did not have an unacceptable streetscape or character impact. The proposal was consistent with the relevant zone objectives. Although amalgamation with 88 Dudley Street would be preferable, the applicant had made an offer and the owner wished to remain; 88 Dudley Street could not justify refusal merely because it was not included in the development.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'multi Unit Housing' 'sepp 1 Objections' 'floor Space Ratio' 'wall Height' 'building Setbacks' 'streetscape and Character Impact' 'isolation of Adjoining Property']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'multi Unit Housing' 'sepp 1 Objections' 'floor Space Ratio' 'wall Height' 'building Setbacks' 'streetscape and Character Impact' 'isolation of Adjoining Property']

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 Development Application / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary and whether the SEPP 1 objection was well founded.' 'Whether strict compliance with the external wall height development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary and whether the SEPP 1 objection was well founded.' 'Whether the proposed development was consistent with the relevant 2C Residential zone objectives.' 'Whether approval of the development would unacceptably isolate the adjoining property at 88 Dudley Street.']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objections to the floor space ratio and wall height standards were well founded because strict compliance was unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances: the proposal achieved the purposes of the standards, did not create unacceptable amenity impacts, and did not have an unacceptable streetscape or character impact. The proposal was consistent with the relevant zone objectives. Although amalgamation with 88 Dudley Street would be preferable, the applicant had made an offer and the owner wished to remain; 88 Dudley Street could not justify refusal merely because it was not included in the development.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application DA/452/2010 for the demolition of the existing improvements and the construction of a multi-unit housing development at 86 Dudley St Coogee is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibits 1, A and F.']