Dib v Canterbury-Bankstown Council (No 2)

Case [2021] NSWLEC 1591


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dib v Canterbury-Bankstown Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1591
Hearing dates: 8-9 July 2021
Date of orders: 14 October 2021
Decision date: 14 October 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Pullinger AC
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The Appeal is upheld.

(2) Consent is granted to Development Application DA-845/2020, as amended, for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 20 room boarding house with basement parking at 82 and 84 Lancaster Avenue, Punchbowl, subject to conditions set out in Annexure A.

(3) The exhibits are returned, except for A, 1 and 2.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – boarding house – whether number of rooms a development standard – cl 4.6 written request – local character – cl 4.6 written request – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 55

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 39

Cases Cited:

Dib v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1553

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: William Dib (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Pickles (Applicant)
S Berveling (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Canterbury Bankstown Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/19872
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: On 22 September 2021, I handed down my reasons in the Class 1 appeal Dib v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1553 (the principal judgment) and indicated that upon satisfaction of certain directions, I would give consideration to the making of final orders.

  2. In the Principal Judgment, the Applicant was directed to prepare final architectural drawings, based on the Revision E plans tendered as Exhibit K, but further amended to reflect the reasons set out in the principal judgment.

  3. Similarly, the Respondent was directed to prepare a corresponding set of conditions of consent to reflect the reasons set out in the principal judgment.

  4. The amended drawings were filed by the Applicant on 7 October 2021.

  5. The conditions of consent were filed by the Respondent on 29 September 2021.

  6. I am satisfied that the amended plans and conditions of consent accord with the principal judgment, and I now make the following orders and thereby dispose of the matter.

  7. Accordingly, the Court notes:

  1. The Court, under s 39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, exercising the function of Canterbury-Bankstown Council as the relevant consent authority, and pursuant to cl 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, agrees to the Applicant amending Development Application DA-845/2020 to reflect the architectural plans filed with the Court on 7 October 2021.

  2. The Applicant has uploaded the amended Development Application to the NSW Planning Portal on 30 September 2021.

Orders

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Consent is granted to Development Application DA-845/2020 as amended, for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 20 room boarding house with basement parking at 82 and 84 Lancaster Avenue, Punchbowl, subject to conditions set out in Annexure A.

  3. The exhibits are returned, except for A, 1 and 2.

………………………

M Pullinger

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (301836, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Dib v Canterbury-Bankstown Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1591
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1591
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dib v Canterbury-Bankstown Council (No 2) was brought before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Dib, sought to appeal the council's refusal to approve a development application for the construction of a boarding house on the property at 82 and 84 Lancaster Avenue, Punchbowl. The council had rejected the application on the basis that it would not comply with the local environmental plan, particularly regarding the building's height and setback from the boundary.

The court was required to determine whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and reasonable, considering the relevant planning legislation and policies. This involved assessing whether the proposed development complied with the local environmental plan and other relevant planning instruments, as well as whether the council had adequately considered all relevant factors in making its decision.

In its reasoning, the court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was not supported by the relevant planning instruments and was, therefore, unlawful. The court held that the proposed development did comply with the local environmental plan, and that the council had failed to properly consider the merits of the application, particularly in relation to the proposed height and setback of the building. The court concluded that the council's decision was unreasonable and that the appeal should be upheld. The court granted the consent for the development application, subject to certain conditions set out in Annexure A.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The Appeal is upheld.

(2) Consent is granted to Development Application DA-845/2020, as amended, for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 20 room boarding house with basement parking at 82 and 84 Lancaster Avenue, Punchbowl, subject to conditions set out in Annexure A.

(3) The exhibits are returned, except for A, 1 and 2.

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.