Stateland Group v Ashfield Council [2005] NSWLEC 443

Stateland Group v Ashfield Council [2005] NSWLEC 443

The current proposal was not in a form that could be approved because the drawings were inadequate and the design did not sufficiently respond to the Ashfield Town Centre Strategy and DCP, SEPP 65 and RFDC requirements: the upper part of Building A required a 5m setback from Liverpool Road, Buildings A and B required 12m separation, the upper levels of Building B required further setback behind the 45o guideline, and the SEPP 65/RFDC assessment was not sufficiently thorough to justify approval or the claimed bonuses. The appropriate course was to adjourn the proceedings and allow amended plans responding to the Court's findings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / After Hearing; Proceedings Adjourned With Directions for Amended Plans
Outcome
Proceedings adjourned; applicant directed to file and serve amended plans and matter listed for call-over.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'development Control Plan' 'floor Space Ratio Bonus' 'height Bonus' 'sepp 65 Design Assessment' 'streetscape and Residential Amenity']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'development Control Plan' 'floor Space Ratio Bonus' 'height Bonus' 'sepp 65 Design Assessment' 'streetscape and Residential Amenity']

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

Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application / After Hearing; Proceedings Adjourned With Directions for Amended Plans

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should the setback from Liverpool Road of the upper part of Building A be increased from the proposed setback of 1m?' 'Should the distance between Buildings A and B be increased from the proposed 10m?' 'Does the proposal justify a height bonus?' 'Does the proposal meet the principles of SEPP 65?' 'Does the proposal justify a FSR bonus?']

Ratio Decidendi

The current proposal was not in a form that could be approved because the drawings were inadequate and the design did not sufficiently respond to the Ashfield Town Centre Strategy and DCP, SEPP 65 and RFDC requirements: the upper part of Building A required a 5m setback from Liverpool Road, Buildings A and B required 12m separation, the upper levels of Building B required further setback behind the 45o guideline, and the SEPP 65/RFDC assessment was not sufficiently thorough to justify approval or the claimed bonuses. The appropriate course was to adjourn the proceedings and allow amended plans responding to the Court's findings.

Court Disposition

Proceedings adjourned; applicant directed to file and serve amended plans and matter listed for call-over.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is to file and serve amended plans by 16 September 2005.' 'The respondent and Mr Chesterman to provide comments on the amended plans by 30 September 2005.' "The parties are referred to call-over on 6 October 2005 for the allocation of one day's hearing." "Liberty to restore on two days' notice."]