NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Binnijig Pty Ltd v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2020] NSWLEC 1086 Hearing dates: 17-18 February 2020 Date of orders: 28 February 2020 Decision date: 28 February 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O'Neill C Decision: The Court orders that: (1) The Applicant is granted leave to amend the application by relying on amended proposal. (2) The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of the amendments of the application for development consent, as agreed or assessed, pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. (3) The appeal is dismissed. (4) Development Application No. 155/2018 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 6 storey mixed use development and two levels of basement parking is refused. (5) The exhibits, other than Exhibits 2, A and M, are returned. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – construction of a six storey mixed use development including 69 residential apartments over two levels of basement parking – contravention of the height of buildings development standard – proposal fails to demonstrate that adequate floor to ceiling heights are achieved – inadequate internal amenity – overshadowing of adjoining properties Legislation Cited: Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development Cases Cited: Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118 RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130 Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827 Texts Cited: Apartment Design Guide Canterbury Development Control Plan 2012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Binnijig Pty Ltd (Applicant) Canterbury Bankstown Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Pickles SC (Applicant) A Seton (Solicitor) (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