Stateland Group v Ashfield Council [No 2] [2005] NSWLEC 703

Stateland Group v Ashfield Council [No 2] [2005] NSWLEC 703

Given the constraints of the site, including the existing Building A and the location of Building B to its south, applying the lesser two-hour solar access guideline was reasonable; with 62% of apartments across the development receiving at least two hours of sunlight and an FSR of less than 3:1, the amended proposal was acceptable and worthy of approval subject to agreed conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal Against Refusal of Development Consent / Further Hearing After Earlier Judgment; Determination of Amended Proposal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'residential Flat Development' 'solar Access' 'floor Space Ratio' 'state Environmental Planning Policy 65' 'residential Flat Development Code']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'residential Flat Development' 'solar Access' 'floor Space Ratio' 'state Environmental Planning Policy 65' 'residential Flat Development Code']

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 Against Refusal of Development Consent / Further Hearing After Earlier Judgment; Determination of Amended Proposal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the amended development proposal responded to the Court's earlier findings about setbacks, building separation, building envelope and SEPP 65/RFDC compliance." "Whether the proposal's solar access performance was acceptable under the RFDC guidelines in the site's circumstances." 'Whether the proposal should receive the benefit of bonus Floor Space Ratio despite solar access concerns.' 'Whether development consent should be granted subject to conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the constraints of the site, including the existing Building A and the location of Building B to its south, applying the lesser two-hour solar access guideline was reasonable; with 62% of apartments across the development receiving at least two hours of sunlight and an FSR of less than 3:1, the amended proposal was acceptable and worthy of approval subject to agreed conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application to alter and convert an existing office building and erect a new residential flat building on lot 1 DP 991435, known as 164-174 Liverpool Road, Ashfield is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'The exhibits are returned except...