Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Dugandzic v Randwick City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1319 Hearing dates: 14-15 December 2022, 15 March 2023 Date of orders: 21 June 2023 Decision date: 21 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Development Application No 172/2022, for a mixed-use development at 6, 8 and 10 Bowral Street, Kensington, is refused.
(3) The exhibits, other than 1 and 6, are returned.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – mixed use development – exceedance of the height of buildings development standard – design excellence
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 39
Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.6, 5.10, 6.2, 6.8, 6.11, 6.14, 6.17, 6.20
Cases Cited: Toga Addison Pty Ltd atf Toga Addison Unit Trust v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1580
Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 117
RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130
Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118
Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90
Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827
Texts Cited: Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Darijo Dugandzic (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Wright SC (Applicant)
A Seton (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/140932 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No 172/2022 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a part six, part nine storey mixed use development comprised of a residential flat building and commercial premises, with shared way, basement parking and landscaping (the proposal), at 6-10 Bowral Street, Kensington (the site), by Randwick City Council (the Council).
-
The appeal was subject to conciliation on 2 September 2022, in accordance with the provisions of s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). As agreement was not reached, the conciliation conference was terminated, pursuant to s 34(4) of the LEC Act.
Issues
-
The Council’s contentions can be summarised into three fundamental issues, as follows:
The proposal does not provide a share way/laneway of a kind or nature envisaged by the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP 2013) for the Kensington Town Centre.
The written request to contravene the height of buildings development standard does not satisfy the jurisdictional pre-requisites under cl 4.6(4)(a) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012).
The proposal fails to exhibit design excellence pursuant to cl 6.11 of LEP 2012 because it does not achieve a high standard of architectural design, materials and detailing appropriate to the building type, as demonstrated by the inadequate floor to ceiling height on the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dugandzic 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
- [2023] NSWLEC 1319
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether the proposed development was consistent with the relevant planning policies and whether it would have an unacceptable impact on the local area. The applicant argued that the development was in line with the planning policies and would not have an unacceptable impact. The council and local residents argued that the development was inconsistent with the planning policies and would have a detrimental impact on the area. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both sides and determine whether the applicant had met the burden of proof required to establish that the development should be approved.
The court found that the proposed development was not consistent with the relevant planning policies and would have an unacceptable impact on the local area. The court considered the evidence presented by both sides and found that the proposed development would result in a significant increase in the density of the area, which was not consistent with the planning policies. The court also found that the development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the local area, and would not be in the public interest. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and refused the development application. The exhibits, other than 1 and 6, were also returned to the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Development Application No 172/2022, for a mixed-use development at 6, 8 and 10 Bowral Street, Kensington, is refused.
(3) The exhibits, other than 1 and 6, are returned.
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.