NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Wainidiva Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2021] NSWLEC 1615 Hearing dates: 17 and 18 May 2021 Date of orders: 15 October 2021 Decision date: 15 October 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: Directions: see [95]. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – boarding house – whether Applicant's written request to vary height of buildings development standard is well founded – whether existing dwellings are contributory items – whether existing dwellings can be demolished – whether proposed development is compatible with the character of the local area – whether proposed development is compatible with character of heritage conservation area – whether design of boarding house is acceptable Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 1.3, 4.15, 4,16, 8.7(1) Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cll 77, Sch 1 Heritage Act 1977 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34 State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, cll 8, 29, 30, 30A State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land, cl 7(1) Waverley Local Environment Plan 2015, cll 2.3, 4.3, 5.10 Cases Cited: BGP Properties Pty Limited v Lake Macquarie City Council (2004) 138 LGERA 237; [2004] NSWLEC 399 Coogee Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1011 Initial Action Pty v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118 Omid Mohebati-Arani v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 143 SLushY Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2021] NSWLEC 1394 Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827; Texts Cited: Land and Environment Court of NSW, COVID-19 Arrangements Policy, April 2021 NSW Department of Planning and Environment, Apartment Design Guide, 2015 Waverley Development Control Plan 2012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wainidiva Pty Ltd (Applicant) Waverley Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Wright (Applicant) M Staunton (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate