Bavcangiovski v Rockdale City Council

Case [2005] NSWLEC 408



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION:

Bavcangiovski v Rockdale City Council [2005] NSWLEC 408

PARTIES:

Applicant:
Dragi and Lube Bavcangiovski

Respondent:
Rockdale City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10916 of 2004

CORAM:

Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- consent orders

DATES OF HEARING: 18/07/2005
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

07/18/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

Applicant:
Ms J Hewitt, solicitor of Home Wilkinson Lowry

Respondent:
Ms K Gerathy, solicitor of Abbott Tout


JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Roseth SC

      18 July 2004

      10916 of 2004 Dragi and Lube Bavcangiovski v Rockdale City Council

      JUDGMENT

      The consequence of the Court’s decision in this appeal is the grant of development consent subject to detailed conditions. These conditions are not reproduced as part of this decision but are available for inspection at the Council. In addition, a copy the Court’s Orders and the conditions may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders and conditions are available on the Court’s web site at

1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the deemed refusal of a development application by Rockdale City Council (the council) for a house on lot 4 DP 305657, known as 123 Queen Victoria Street, Bexley. The parties have come to an agreement to seek consent orders from the Court.

2 Mr B Krohn, a town planner with the council, told the Court that he had two major concerns with the application as it was originally proposed. First, it looked inappropriate in the street due to its height, excessive gable size and lack of articulation. Second, its design allowed for poor solar access. Following negotiations, the applicant amended the plans, lowering the floor level and the gable and introducing articulation into the front façade. Changes were also made to allow for more winter sunlight to enter the living areas. As a result, Mr Krohn had no further issues with the proposal.

3 There being no objectors, the Court granted the request for consent orders.

      Orders
  1. The appeal is upheld.
  2. Development application for a house on lot 4 DP 305657, known as 123 Queen Victoria Street, Bexley is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
  3. No order for cossts.
  4. The exhibits are retained.

      __________________
      Dr John Roseth
      Senior Commissioner
Details
AGLC
Bavcangiovski v Rockdale City Council [2005] NSWLEC 408
Case
[2005] NSWLEC 408
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dragi and Lube Bavcangiovski appealed to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales against the deemed refusal of their development application by Rockdale City Council. The application sought consent for the construction of a house on lot 4 DP 305657, known as 123 Queen Victoria Street, Bexley. The applicants and the council reached an agreement to seek consent orders from the Court, which were subsequently granted. The primary legal issue was whether the amended development application should be approved subject to specific conditions.

The court considered the amended plans presented by the applicants, which addressed the council's concerns regarding the height, gable size, articulation, and solar access. Town planner Mr. Krohn from the council testified that the modifications made to the design were satisfactory, eliminating his initial objections. Given that there were no other objectors to the development application, the Court proceeded to grant the requested consent orders.

In its judgment, the Court upheld the appeal and determined that the development application should be granted consent, subject to the conditions outlined in Annexure A. The Court did not make any orders regarding costs, and the exhibits were retained. This decision finalised the matter, allowing the applicants to proceed with the construction of their house on the specified lot.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.