X.Pace Design Group v Woollahra Municipal Council [2009] NSWLEC 1268

X.Pace Design Group v Woollahra Municipal Council [2009] NSWLEC 1268

The SEPP 1 objection was not well founded because the proposed development did not satisfy objectives (b), (c) and (d) of the floor space ratio development standard. The three-storey form conflicted with the two-storey control and the desired future character for the locality, created unacceptable visual bulk when viewed from adjoining Wilberforce Avenue properties, and approval was likely to encourage further non-compliant three-storey residential flat buildings. Accordingly, allowing the floor space ratio variation would not be consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 and would tend to hinder the objects in s 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Application DA 565/2008/1
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; development application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'residential Flat Building' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Development Standards Objection' 'floor Space Ratio' 'desired Future Character' 'streetscape Impact' 'amenity Impacts']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'residential Flat Building' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Development Standards Objection' 'floor Space Ratio' 'desired Future Character' 'streetscape Impact' 'amenity Impacts']

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 / Appeal Against Refusal of Application DA 565/2008/1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the SEPP 1 objection to the floor space ratio development standard was well founded.' 'Whether compliance with the floor space ratio development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.' 'Whether the proposed three-storey residential flat building was consistent with the desired future character and streetscape controls for the Rose Bay Precinct Street Section (2).' 'Whether the proposed development would cause unacceptable amenity impacts, including visual bulk, privacy and overshadowing impacts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The SEPP 1 objection was not well founded because the proposed development did not satisfy objectives (b), (c) and (d) of the floor space ratio development standard. The three-storey form conflicted with the two-storey control and the desired future character for the locality, created unacceptable visual bulk when viewed from adjoining Wilberforce Avenue properties, and approval was likely to encourage further non-compliant three-storey residential flat buildings. Accordingly, allowing the floor space ratio variation would not be consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 and would tend to hinder the objects in s 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; development application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Application DA 565/2008/1 for the demolition of two existing dwelling houses and ancillary structures and the construction of a three-storey residential flat building containing six units, 14 car basement car parking spaces, a swimming pool, landscaping works and the strata subdivision...