MGT 6 Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney

In this case, MGT 6 Pty Ltd sought a review of a decision by the Council of the City of Sydney to refuse development consent. The dispute centred on the plans for a mixed-use development at 10-14 Cooper Street, Surry Hills. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the refusal was lawful and if the development consent should be granted. The applicant argued that the refusal was unreasonable and that the plans met all relevant criteria and standards.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plans complied with the relevant planning instruments and whether the Council's decision to refuse development consent was lawful. The applicant contended that the Council had failed to properly consider the merits of the development application and had erred in its interpretation of the planning standards. The Council, on the other hand, argued that the applicant's plans did not comply with the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012, particularly in relation to the development standard for setbacks and floor space ratio.

The Court of Appeal found that the Council's decision to refuse development consent was unreasonable. The Court held that the plans submitted by the applicant complied with the relevant planning instruments and that the Council had not provided adequate reasons for the refusal. The Court also found that the applicant's clause 4.6 variation request did not contravene the development standard in clause 4.3 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012. Consequently, the Court substituted the plans prepared by Koichi Takada Architects in Exhibits M and P and granted development consent for the proposed mixed-use development.

The Court ordered that the appeal be upheld, the plans in Exhibits M and P be substituted, and development consent be granted for the proposed development. The Court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the Council in the sum of $2,500 within 21 days of the date of the order. The development consent was to be granted in accordance with the amended plans and subject to the conditions of consent noted as Annexure A to the Judgment.