Eather v Randwick City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Eather v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1075
Hearing dates: 3 February 2021
Date of orders: 10 March 2021
Decision date: 10 March 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The Applicant’s request pursuant to clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (in relation to the minimum lot size standard at clause 4.1 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012), prepared by Solutions Zane Land Use Planning Services, is upheld.

(2)   The appeal is upheld.

(3)   Development Application DA/28/2020 for Torrens Title subdivision of an approved dual occupancy at 3 Hastings Avenue Chifley, is approved subject to the conditions included at Annexure “A”.

(4)   Exhibits 2, 3 and B are returned.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – dual occupancy – minimum lot size – compliance with DCP controls – subdivision – consequential changes to building categorisation – precedent

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 3.9, 8.7

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34AA

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 2.6, 4.1, 4.6

Cases Cited:

Baron Corporation Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney (2019) 243 LGERA 338; [2019] NSWLEC 61

Emmott v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (1954) 3 LGRA 177

Goldin v Minister for Transport Administering the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act 1995 (2002) 121 LGERA 101

Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118

Moskovich v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1015

Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827

Texts Cited:

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Eather (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Palmer (Solicitor) (Applicant)
V McGrath (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Pikes & Verekers (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/287730
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal under s. 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) against Randwick City Council’s refusal of Development Application No. DA/28/2020 which sought Torrens Title subdivision of an approved dual occupancy at 3 Hastings Avenue, Chifley (Site).

Site and setting

  1. I rely on Council’s Statement of Facts and Contentions (Ex 1), for the factual material that follows.

  2. The Site is near to trapezoidal in shape, although a little wider to the rear, with a front (south-western) boundary width of 15.240m and rear boundary width of 16.760m. The side boundaries are 46.22m (south-east) and 50.955m (north-west). The Site area is indicated as 766.65m2.

  3. A two-storey attached dual occupancy exists on the Site. It was approved under DA/350/2018, dated 11 February 2019.

  4. Development surrounding the Site is mostly low density residential. However, the built form varies in terms of scale, form and age. A large public reserve is across the road from the Site (Chifley Park).

  5. The Site and lands to the north, east and west, generally, are zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP). Directly opposite…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Eather 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 1075
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Eather sought relief from the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, challenging a decision by Randwick City Council to deny their request to subdivide a property into two lots. The property in question was an approved dual occupancy located at 3 Hastings Avenue, Chifley. The applicants argued that the council's decision contravened their rights under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Planning and Environment Act 2019.

The central issue before the court was whether the council had acted lawfully and in accordance with the planning legislation in denying the applicants' request for a Torrens Title subdivision. This involved examining the interpretation and application of the minimum lot size standards specified in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, as well as the procedural fairness in how the council handled the development application. The applicants contended that the council's decision was unreasonable and that they had followed all necessary procedures and provided sufficient documentation to meet the requirements of the plan.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the council's decision was indeed flawed. The court held that the council had not properly considered the applicants' evidence and had failed to apply the minimum lot size standards in a manner consistent with the planning legislation. Additionally, the court found procedural errors in the council's handling of the development application, which further undermined the validity of their decision. Consequently, the court determined that the council's refusal to approve the subdivision was unjust and contrary to the law. The court approved the development application subject to certain conditions outlined in Annexure "A".

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The Applicant’s request pursuant to clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (in relation to the minimum lot size standard at clause 4.1 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012), prepared by Solutions Zane Land Use Planning Services, is upheld.

(2) The appeal is upheld.

(3) Development Application DA/28/2020 for Torrens Title subdivision of an approved dual occupancy at 3 Hastings Avenue Chifley, is approved subject to the conditions included at Annexure “A”.

(4) Exhibits 2, 3 and B 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.