Stokes v Waverley Council (No 3) [2020] NSWLEC 1224
The Court dismissed the appeal and refused Development Application 404/2017 because, on its own assessment, the proposed development contravened the height and FSR development standards and the applicant's cl 4.6 written requests did not adequately demonstrate that compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary, that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds, or that the contraventions were in the public interest. The Court found the current excavated surface was the ground level (existing) for height assessment, the proposed building was incompatible with the height, bulk, scale, streetscape and existing character of the locality, and the development was an overdevelopment of the...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 May 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Development Appeal / Remitter Hearing Following Stokes V Waverley Council (no 2) [2019] NSWLEC 174; Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application 404/2017
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; Development Application 404/2017 refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['development Appeal' 'remitted Matter' 'clause 4.6 Written Requests' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'existing Ground Level' 'excavation' 'consent Orders' 'public Interest']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal / Remitter Hearing Following Stokes V Waverley Council (no 2) [2019] NSWLEC 174; Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application 404/2017
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to rely on the amended cl 4.6 written request for variation of height and to amend the DA to include strata subdivision.' 'Whether ground level (existing) for assessing height under Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 was the current excavated surface or the pre-construction level.' 'Whether the cl 4.6 written request justified contravention of the height development standard.' 'Whether the cl 4.6 written request justified contravention of the floor space ratio development standard.' 'Whether the proposed development satisfied s 4.15(1)(a)(i), (c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' "Whether the Court should make the proposed consent orders notwithstanding the parties' agreement."]
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal and refused Development Application 404/2017 because, on its own assessment, the proposed development contravened the height and FSR development standards and the applicant's cl 4.6 written requests did not adequately demonstrate that compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary, that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds, or that the contraventions were in the public interest. The Court found the current excavated surface was the ground level (existing) for height assessment, the proposed building was incompatible with the height, bulk, scale, streetscape and existing character of the locality, and the development was an overdevelopment of the...
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; Development Application 404/2017 refused.
Orders
- ['Leave is granted to rely on the amended cl 4.6 written request for variation of height, filed 22 April 2020. Leave is not granted to amend the DA to include strata subdivision.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'Development Application 404/2017 seeking alterations and additions to an approved five storey building for...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment