Who decides which planning controls apply? – Ross v Lane
A development can have significant consequences for a neighbour without amounting to “substantial redevelopment” of the building itself.
Read MoreCategory: Environmental Planning Instruments
Objectives of the zone – Kool Family Developments v City of Ryde Council
The decision of Council of the Kool Family Developments Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council provides a reminder that objectives of the zone are a relevant consideration when considering the merits of a development application.
Read MoreLegalities of CDCs – Council of the City of Ryde v Network Developments NSW
The decision of Council of the City of Ryde v Network Developments NSW provides a warning to those obtaining complying development certificates (known as CDCs). In particular, it is critical that the lawfulness of issuing a CDC is considered at the date of issue.
Read MoreIn the news – Clause 4.6 variations
Following an inquiry into the former Canterbury City Council, ICAC has made some interesting recommendations in relation to the use of clause 4.6 variation requests.
Read MorePublication of SEPPS and LEPS
There have been some recent changes to how the public is notified about new planning instruments on the NSW Government website.
Read MoreMinimum lot sizes under SEPPs – UPG v Blacktown City Council
On 9 June 2020 the Court of Appeal handed down a decision which considered the interaction of minimum lot size clauses across two State Environmental Planning Policies.
Read MoreWestern Sydney Aerotropolis Planning Package
The draft plans for the Western Sydney Aerotropolis are now available – and this article points out five interesting features of the package.
Read MoreManor Houses under the LRMD Code
Today’s post is in response to a question regarding manor houses under the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code.
Read MoreDevelopment Standards – Geeves v Inner West Council
In the recent case of Geeves v Inner West Council, the Land and Environment Court found that it had no power to issue a development consent because a development standard was exceeded and no variation had been sought.
Read MoreClause 4.6 variations – Mandile v Sutherland Shire Council
Despite a wide range of issues in contention, the Land and Environment dismissed the entire case based on an inadequate 4.6 variation request.
Read More
