Badar v Canterbury Council [2014] NSWLEC 1149

Badar v Canterbury Council [2014] NSWLEC 1149

The Court was satisfied that the amended plans adequately addressed the contentions, complied with or met the objectives of the relevant planning controls, and that the remaining concerns did not warrant refusal, so the consent orders approving the development application could be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application No. Da 50/2013 / Consent Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld by consent; development application approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'consent Orders' 'affordable Housing Residential Flat Building' 'in Fill Affordable Housing' 'planning Controls']
['environmental Planning and Development Law'] ['development Application' 'consent Orders' 'affordable Housing Residential Flat Building' 'in Fill Affordable Housing' 'planning Controls']

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 No. Da 50/2013 / Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Development Application No. Da-50/2013 for demolition of existing structures and construction of an in-fill affordable housing development at 12 Beaumont Street, Campsie should be approved by consent orders.' "Whether the amended plans resolved the council's contentions and adequately addressed planning controls, including SEPPARH, Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Canterbury Development Control Plan 2012." 'Whether non-compliance with the minimum frontage requirement in cl 2.1.2 of Canterbury Development Control Plan 2012 warranted refusal.' "Whether objectors' concerns about traffic, parking, noise, privacy, overshadowing and bulk warranted refusal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the amended plans adequately addressed the contentions, complied with or met the objectives of the relevant planning controls, and that the remaining concerns did not warrant refusal, so the consent orders approving the development application could be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld by consent; development application approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld' 'Development Application No. Da-50/2013 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of an infill affordable housing development in the form of a three storey residential flat building containing nine apartments with basement level parking for 12 vehicles on the land known...