Teda Northshore Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1014

Teda Northshore Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1014

The written requests to vary development standards in relation to access (cl 26(2)(b)(iii)), height (cl 40(4)(b)), and FSR (cl 50(b), cl 4.4 WLEP) for the seniors living development are well founded and acceptable, as compliance is unnecessary, adequate public interest and environmental grounds exist, and no significant planning or public interest harms are identified. All outstanding contentions regarding amenity, access, stormwater, and footpath issues are resolved or conditioned, so the appeal is upheld and development consent granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal / Final Judgment and Orders After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away as a consequence of amendments to the application.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'seniors Living' 'variation of Development Standards' 'clause 4.6 Requests' 'appeal of Council Refusal' 'sepp Seniors' 'local Environmental Plan' 'development Standards' 'fsr' 'height' 'access to Facilities']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'seniors Living' 'variation of Development Standards' 'clause 4.6 Requests' 'appeal of Council Refusal' 'sepp Seniors' 'local Environmental Plan' 'development Standards' 'fsr' 'height' 'access to Facilities']

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 Development Appeal / Final Judgment and Orders After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether written requests to vary development standards under cl 4.6 WLEP (regarding access to facilities, height, and FSR standards) for a seniors living development are well founded; whether contentions regarding vehicular access, stormwater, footpath works, and public interest are resolved; whether development consent should be granted for amended DA-2020/240.']

Ratio Decidendi

The written requests to vary development standards in relation to access (cl 26(2)(b)(iii)), height (cl 40(4)(b)), and FSR (cl 50(b), cl 4.4 WLEP) for the seniors living development are well founded and acceptable, as compliance is unnecessary, adequate public interest and environmental grounds exist, and no significant planning or public interest harms are identified. All outstanding contentions regarding amenity, access, stormwater, and footpath issues are resolved or conditioned, so the appeal is upheld and development consent granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away as a consequence of amendments to the application.

Orders

  • ["Applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away due to amendments to the development application in the sum of $1,000 within 4 weeks of this judgment." "Applicant's written requests under cl 4.6 WLEP to vary standards in cll 26(2)(b)(iii) and 40(4)(b) of SEPP Seniors are upheld." 'The appeal is upheld.'...