NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Innerwest 888 Pty Ltd v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1241 Hearing dates: 6, 7 & 21 April 2017 Date of orders: 16 May 2017 Decision date: 16 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: MODIFICATION OF CONSENT: whether substantially the same development, mixed use development Legislation Cited: Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012; State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development; Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Cases Cited: Vacik Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [1992] NSW LEC 8; Moto Projects (No. 2) Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 280; Seaside Property Developments Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 117 Texts Cited: Apartment Design Guide Category: Principal judgment Parties: Innerwest 888 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury Bankstown Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr M Wright (Applicant)
Solicitors: Mr C Gough, Storey and Gough (Applicant) Mr P Jackson, Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 380489/2016 Publication restriction: No
Judgment 1. Innerwest 888 Pty Ltd (Innerwest) lodged an application with Canterbury Bankstown Council that seeks to modify Development consent 533/2012 by expanding the basement car park level, providing an additional level of residential accommodation and modifying the approved strata title subdivision plan to incorporate the additional units and the associated carparking spaces. 2. The council had not determined the application and Innerwest is appealing its deemed refusal. 3. The main issues in the case are whether the development is substantially the same as the development approved under the original development consent and if it is whether the height, bulk and scale of the additional building works are appropriate.
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