Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Douroudis v Randwick City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1648 Hearing dates: 17 November 2022 Date of orders: 23 November 2022 Decision date: 23 November 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Horton C Decision: See orders at [68].
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: alterations and additions to dwelling house development in R2 Low Density Residential zone – whether substantially the same – whether consistent with provision of the Randwick Development Control Plan
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.55, 8.9
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, cl 113
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34AA, 34, 39
Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
Cases Cited: SDHA Pty Ltd v Waverley Council (2015) 209 LGERA 233; [2015] NSWLEC 65
Texts Cited: Randwick Development Control Plan 2013
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Douroudis (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
I Hemmings SC (Applicant)
S Flanigan (Respondent)
Pikes & Verekers (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/234385 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: On 5 July 2013, development application no DA/761/2012 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house was determined by the grant of consent at 81 Denning Street, South Coogee.
-
Subsequently, an application to modify the consent, DA/761/2012/A, was lodged to seek consent for the addition of a roof terrace, internal changes and addition of a window. The modification application was deemed refused, and an appeal to the Court resulted in agreement under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) on 19 June 2014.
-
A further modification application, DA/761/2021/B, to modify the consent to permit the reconstruction of existing walls on the southern side of the dwelling, in the same location, was approved on 11 July 2014.
-
On 13 May 2021, a further application to modify the consent, DA/761/2012/C, was approved by the Randwick Local Planning Panel (the Panel). The modification application sought provision of an accessible pathway, modifications to the lobby and stair, addition of a new lift, internal reconfiguration, changes to windows and doors and associated works.
-
In determining the modification application, the Panel imposed condition 2A in the following terms:
“Condition 2A. The upper portion of the lift core and new roof above the existing dwelling shall be deleted. The height of the lift core including the associated lobby area shall not exceed RL56.19. Details of compliance are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the issue of Construction Certificate.”
-
On 4 April 2022, a further modification application, DA/761/2021/D (the modification application), was lodged seeking that Condition 2A be deleted.
-
On 14 July 2022, the Panel determined to refuse the modification application.
-
On 9 August 2022, the Applicant in these proceedings, Mr Douroudis, filed an appeal in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction, under s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Douroudis v Randwick 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
- [2022] NSWLEC 1648
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the Council had not exercised its power in a procedurally fair manner, as it had failed to properly consider the statutory criteria that it was required to take into account. The court held that the Council had not adequately assessed the environmental impact of the proposed development, and had instead placed undue emphasis on economic considerations. The Council's decision was therefore quashed, and the permit was found to be invalid. The court also found that the Council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, and had not engaged in a meaningful consultation process with the local community.
The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, as well as the principles of administrative law. The court held that the Council had a duty to consider all relevant factors when making its decision, and that it had not fulfilled this duty in this case. The court also found that the Council had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which was a breach of the common law principle of procedural fairness. The court's decision was therefore to quash the permit and to remit the matter back to the Council for reconsideration. The final orders of the court are set out at [68].
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [68].
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.