Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bachir v Kogarah City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1124 Hearing dates: 1-2 July 2013 Decision date: 12 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: Appeal upheld subject to conditions
Catchwords: MODIFICATION: increase in height of constructed dwelling; impact on streetscape; impact on view from neighbouring property Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008Cases Cited: Alphatex Australia v The Hills Shire Council (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 1126
Pafburn v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWLEC 444
Super Studio v Waverley [2004] NSWLEC 91
Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140
Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 289
Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167Category: Principal judgment Parties: Raed Bashir (Applicant)
Kogarah City Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant: Mr S Nash (Barrister)
Respondent: Ms S Puckeridge (Solicitor)
Solicitors
Applicant: Salim Rutherford Lawyers
Respondent: Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd
File Number(s): 10274 of 2013
Judgment
COMMISSIONER: The applicant appeals Kogarah City Council's refusal of a Section 96 Modification Application No. 347/2010/4 to allow an increase in building height and an increase in floor space ratio for a newly constructed two-storey dwelling.
The appeal to the Court is made under s 97AA(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act), that is, as a deemed refusal. Since the filing of the Class 1 application, the council determined the s 96 application and resolved to refuse it.
The proposal, relevant background and the issues
In January 2011, the council granted Development Consent No: 347/2010 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey dwelling with basement garage and in-ground pool on approved Lot 110, known as 59 Townson Street, Blakehurst (the site). The site is located on the corner of Townson and East Streets.
The dwelling, including the pool and the garage has been constructed.
The applicant has lodged a number of s 96 applications to modify the approved development. The history of applications is detailed in the council's Statement of facts and Contentions. While a number of internal modifications have been approved, the council has consistently refused approval to increase the height of various elements of the dwelling.
The Statement of Environmental Effects included with the modification application describes the proposed modifications in the current application. These relate to the as-built form of the dwelling and are summarised as:
- Basement level: additional space for access to plant equipment and lift; finished floor level raised by 30mm; backfilling of an excavated void space;
- Ground floor level: finished as-built floor levels raised by 590mm at the rear and by 600mm at the front; changes to the size and configuration of internals spaces; enclosure of an alfresco covered area on western side of the kitchen beneath a first floor bedroom;
- First floor level: as-built floor level raised by 670mm;…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bachir v Kogarah City 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NSWLEC 1124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the Land and Environment Court erred in law by granting the development approval. The primary issue was whether the proposed development was consistent with the objectives of the relevant planning scheme, including the preservation of the residential character of the area and minimising environmental harm. Additionally, the court considered whether the Council's decision was unreasonable or based on an error of law.
The court found that the Land and Environment Court had not erred in granting the development approval. The court held that the proposed development did not significantly depart from the residential character of the area, given the applicant's proposal to include residential units as part of the development. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had adequately addressed potential environmental impacts through the proposed design and mitigation measures. The court concluded that the Council's decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable due to an error in assessing the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding environment. The appeal was therefore upheld, subject to conditions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal upheld subject to conditions
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.