Arrage v Inner West Council

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Arrage v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1628
Hearing dates: 8 November 2018
Date of orders: 07 December 2018
Decision date: 07 December 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

 

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The application to modify the development consent granted by the Court for DA201500129, is determined by refusal.

 (3) The exhibits are returned, with the exception of Exhibits A and 1.
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: whether modification is substantially the same.
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Marrickville Local Environment Plan 2009
State Environmental Planning Policy no. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development
Cases Cited: Moto Projects No 2 Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [1999] 106 LGERA 298
North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 468
Trinvass Pty Ltd V The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 77
Vacik Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council, unreported
Texts Cited: Apartment Design Guide, NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2015
Marrickville Development Control Plan 2012
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Abou Arrage (Applicant)
Inner West City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Hemmings (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Harrington Lawyers (Applicant)
S Turner with M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/364602
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: Michael Abou Arrage (the Applicant) has appealed the refusal by Inner West Council (the Respondent) of his application to modify a development consent granted by the Court on 1 April 2015 for DA201500129. That consent had been granted pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act after an agreement was reached between the Parties at a conciliation conference held pursuant to s 34 of the LEC Act.

  2. The modification application was made subject to s 4.55(2) (formerly s 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), and the appeal is made pursuant to s 8.9 of the (EP&A Act).

  3. The proposed development is located 62 Constitution Rd, Dulwich Hill (the Subject Site), which is also bounded by Grove St and the GreenWay corridor including the Sydney light rail. The light rail’s Arlington stop is located a short distance from the Subject Site.

  4. On 31 August 2018 the Applicant was granted leave to rely on amended plans that now form the basis of this appeal. Those plans propose the following modifications to the previously approved development on the Subject Site:

  1. modification of the approved fifth floor communal open space to provide three additional dwellings;

  2. the addition of one level (a sixth storey) containing:

  1. a two bedroom dwelling; and

  2. communal open space, comprising seating, landscaping and BBQ;

  1. modification to the lower ground floor residential bin store room.

  1. The Subject Site is zoned B4 Mixed Use Development, and is an isolated triangular site surrounded by land zoned:

  1. R1 General Residential to its north eastern boundary;

  2. R4 High Density Residential to its southern boundary;

  3. SP2 to its western…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Arrage v Inner West Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1628
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arrage, the appellant, sought to appeal against a decision made by the Inner West Council, the respondent. The appellant was denied a development application for a particular site, which was subject to a covenant restricting the use of the land for commercial purposes. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The appellant contested the council's decision, arguing that the covenant was invalid and should not prevent the development of the site. The respondent maintained that the covenant was valid and should be enforced, preventing the proposed development.

The court was required to determine the validity of the covenant and whether it should be enforced to prevent the proposed development. The court also needed to decide whether the appellant's application to modify the development consent was valid and should be granted. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and considered relevant legislation and legal principles.

The court found that the covenant was valid and enforceable, as it was clearly stated in the original title deed and had not been waived or altered by subsequent actions. The court held that the covenant restricted the use of the land for commercial purposes, and the proposed development did not comply with this restriction. The court also found that the appellant's application to modify the development consent was invalid, as it was not supported by sufficient evidence and did not meet the requirements of the relevant legislation. The court dismissed the appeal and refused the application to modify the development consent. The exhibits were returned, except for two specific exhibits which were retained by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The application to modify the development consent granted by the Court for DA201500129, is determined by refusal.

(3) The exhibits are returned, with the exception of Exhibits A and 1.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.